Case Details: Shanti Swaroop Sharma Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi(2025) 32 Centax 186 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- S/Shri Ashirwad & Virat Sharma, Advs., for the Appellant.
- Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellants, directors of an exporter company, were subjected to a penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the jurisdictional officer under Customs, consequent to an order of confiscation of export goods. The appellants contended that the penalty imposed upon them under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable since the confiscation of goods, which formed the basis for such penalty, had been set aside. They submitted that when the primary confiscation is annulled, the consequential penalty under the same provision cannot be enforced. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that when the confiscation of goods is set aside, the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not have been imposed. The Tribunal observed that the existence of confiscation is a necessary precondition for sustaining a penalty under Section 114(iii), and in the absence of such confiscation, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.
List of Cases Cited
- Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — Excise Appeal No. 51148/2020, decided on 1-4-2025 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Relied on [Paras 11, 12]
