2015 (6) TMI 1088 - AT - Customs

Clandestine clearance of imported goods - Rerolling & Heavy Melting Scrap - forged DEPB srips - Held that - it is evident that the appellant is not connected with preparation of the forged DEPB Scripts and also preparation of the Bills of Entry. Hence in my view, since the involvement of the appellant in the fraudulent activities have not been proved with any tangible evidence, the proceedings initiated against him for imposition of penalty will not be justified. Therefore, penalty imposed in the Adjudication order as well as confirmed in the impugned order is not legal and proper, and as such, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on an employee of a Clearing House Agent (CHA) for involvement in fraudulent activities related to clearance of imported goods without payment of appropriate Customs Duty.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s Regent Strips (P) Ltd importing Rerolling & Heavy Melting Scrap, with subsequent investigations revealing that the Customs Officer's signature on the Bills of Entries had been forged, leading to clearance of goods without proper duty payment. Proceedings were initiated against various individuals, including the appellant, an employee of CHA - M/s Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. The Adjudication Order imposed penalties, which were reduced to 50% by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in the fraudulent activities. The Commissioner noted that the main accused did not implicate the appellant and that the appellant was not directly involved in the clearance of goods without duty payment. However, the reduction in penalty was based on the appellant's awareness of arrangements between other individuals involved in the fraud.

The Tribunal, per S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial), analyzed the Commissioner's observations and found that the appellant was not connected with the preparation of forged DEPB Scripts or Bills of Entry. As there was no tangible evidence proving the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent activities, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed in the Adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order was not legally justified. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by setting aside the impugned orders, indicating that the penalty on the appellant was not warranted.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent activities, leading to the setting aside of the penalties imposed on the appellant. The decision underscored the importance of establishing clear involvement through tangible evidence before imposing penalties in such cases.