smuggling :Person aware are also liable for penalty

Person who was aware of smuggling but didn't intimate it to customs authorities was liable to penalty

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Commissioner of Customs, Trichy

v.

S. Janarthanan

R. SUDHAKAR AND R. KARUPPIAH, JJ.

C.M.A. NO. 93 OF 2009
M.P. NO. 1 OF 2009

FEBRUARY  27, 2015 

Section 114, read with sections 113 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty - Smuggling/Illegal Export - In matter of attempted export of 'prohibited sandalwood' in guise of 'roofing tiles', department found that : (a) respondent was informed by exporting parties about said smuggling; (b) in spite of having knowledge, respondent did not inform same to Customs and was induced for monetary consideration to keep quiet; (c) his omitting to do action required by him under Customs Act, showed that he was involved in smuggling of sandal wood; and hence, department levied penalty on him - Tribunal held that respondent's omission was 'non-disclosure of attempted smuggling by others' and since such omission had not rendered goods liable for confiscation under section 113, penalty could not be levied on him - HELD : Respondent was complicit in act of smuggling, which render goods liable for confiscation under section 113 - He also abetted in doing such acts - Respondent is one among culprits, who attempted to smuggle sandalwood - Since respondent had knowledge about sandalwood being part of roofing tiles and he did not intimate same to customs authorities, he is liable for penalty [Paras 13 to 16] [In favour of revenue]