2004 (12) TMI 440 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against penalties imposed under Section 112A of Customs Act
- Alleged mis-declaration of imported goods
- Role of present appellants in the import process
- Evidence presented by both parties
- Disclosure made by Sh. Manish Vijhani during personal hearing
- Reliance on statements and submissions by Sh. Manish Vijhani
- Request for cross-examination of CHA
- Burden of proof and guilt shifting
- Connection of present appellants with the import process
- Decision on penalties imposed on present appellants

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with appeals challenging penalties imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act. The case involved allegations of mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s. Ayesha Exports and M/s. Kazal Impex, both owned by Sh. Manish Vijhani. The Customs authorities rejected the classification claimed by the importers, leading to penalties being imposed on various individuals, including the present appellants - Sh. Sushant Agrawal, Shri Naresh Gupta, and Sh. Onkar Singh.

The appellants contested the penalties, arguing they were merely buyers of the imported goods and had no role in the mis-declaration. They claimed to have made inquiries and advance payments to Sh. Manish Vijhani, who admitted during the investigation that the goods were to be sold to the present appellants. The Revenue, however, contended that Sh. Manish Vijhani revealed during the adjudication that the import was done on behalf of the present appellants, implicating them in the mis-declaration.

The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority heavily relied on Sh. Manish Vijhani's disclosure during the personal hearing, where he shifted the blame onto the present appellants. However, this crucial disclosure was not made during the investigation, and the appellants were not informed about it. The Tribunal found the reliance on this disclosure without corroborative evidence to be unjustified. Additionally, the refusal to allow cross-examination of the Clearing and Forwarding Agent (CHA) raised doubts about the evidence presented.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' inquiries and advance payments did not conclusively prove their involvement in the mis-declaration. The lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the bank accounts of M/s. Ayesha Exports and M/s. Kazal Impex further weakened the case against them. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the present appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence to establish their culpability in the mis-declaration.