2009 (7) TMI 1061 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Implication of individuals in import case, penalty imposition, evidence evaluation.

Implication of Shri Krishna Tambi:
The Appeals arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, implicating Shri Krishna Tambi in an import case involving precious stones. The Authorities alleged that the goods imported were undervalued and remained unclaimed, leading to penalties imposed on Shri Krishna Tambi. However, the Counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence connecting Shri Krishna Tambi to the import, emphasizing that he had no ownership or involvement in placing the order for the goods. The Counsel further highlighted that Shri Krishna Tambi's authorization to clear the goods did not imply his guilt, as there was a lack of substantial proof against him.

Implication of Shri Sachin Tambi:
Similarly, Shri Sachin Tambi was also implicated in the import case, but the Counsel contended that there was no solid evidence linking him to the import or proving any connivance in undervaluation. Despite Shri Sachin Tambi's business dealings in precious stones and a visit to Bangkok, the Authorities failed to establish his direct involvement in the specific import from M/s. Kalyan Gems Trading Co. The Counsel argued that mere presence in the business did not equate to guilt without substantial evidence.

Evaluation of Evidence and Decision:
Upon thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the Tribunal found that the charges against both Shri Krishna Tambi and Shri Sachin Tambi were not substantiated. The Tribunal noted that the import was made in the name of M/s. Gaurav Exports, owned by Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal, who authorized Shri Krishna Tambi for clearance. However, as the goods remained unclaimed and there was no concrete evidence of direct involvement by the Appellants, the penalties imposed on them were waived based on the benefit of doubt. In a separate Appeal by Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal, who faced a penalty for the import, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as he was identified as the importer based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal of Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal, upholding the penalty imposed on him as the importer. The decision was based on the established nexus between Shri Khandelwal and the imported goods, despite them remaining unclaimed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence and ownership in import cases, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal due to lack of substantial proof against the Appellants.