9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 557 - AT - CustomsValidity of show cause notice - Issued by DGCEI officers of Mumbai - Held that it is seen from the Bills of Entry for warehousing that the goods were imported at Mumbai Port and it was transhipped to the said unit at Surat, which is a customs station. Therefore as the goods were imported at Mumbai port, the DGCEI officers of Mumbai has jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. Imposition of penalty - Under Section 112, and/or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Conspiracy to defraud by indulging in selling duty free imported materials in the local market and forge of documents - Held that Shri Ganatra is the master mind of the entire episode therefore, he has been imposed the penalty of such quantum as was warranted by Adjudication Authority. Penalty raised on other appellants is reduced by considering the role of the dealers. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DGCEI Officers to issue show cause notice. 2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 and/or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Role and involvement of the appellants in the evasion of customs duty and diversion of imported goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of DGCEI Officers to issue show cause notice: The appellants raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the DGCEI, Mumbai, to issue the show cause notice, arguing that the import took place at Sachin, Surat, and thus, the Mumbai officers had no territorial jurisdiction. The appellants relied on several Tribunal decisions to support their claim. However, the Revenue countered that the goods were imported at Mumbai port and transshipped to Surat, making the Mumbai DGCEI officers competent to issue the notice. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed imported at Mumbai port and transshipped to Surat, thus affirming the jurisdiction of the Mumbai DGCEI officers. The Tribunal overruled the preliminary issue raised by the appellants. 2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 and/or 114A of the Customs Act, 1962: The main noticee, M/s Raj International, did not file an appeal, thereby accepting the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The penalties were imposed on various individuals under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for their involvement in the diversion of duty-free imported goods into the local market. The Adjudicating Authority found that: - Shri Hasmukh Ganatra played a key role in the procurement, sale, and arrangement of fake export documents, and was the mastermind behind the scheme. He was imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. - Shri Sunil Agarwal and Shri Ramnivas Agarwal were involved in the procurement and sale of the goods locally. They were each imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. - Shri Nilesh Bansal was found to be involved in trading duty-free goods in the local market and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. 3. Role and involvement of the appellants in the evasion of customs duty and diversion of imported goods: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the roles of the appellants: - Shri Hasmukh Ganatra financed the entire deal, became surety for Rs. 1.45 crores, and managed the business activities of M/s Raj International. His involvement was clear from the statements of various persons, and the penalty imposed on him was justified. - Shri Sunil Agarwal and Shri Ramnivas Agarwal were engaged in trading activities and facilitated the sale of imported goods. Despite the argument that no statement of Shri Ramnivas Agarwal was recorded, the Tribunal found that both brothers operated from a common office and did not dispute these facts before the Adjudicating Authority. - Shri Nilesh Bansal was also found to be knowingly involved in trading duty-free goods in the local market. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties on Shri Hasmukh Ganatra and Shri Nilesh Bansal were warranted and upheld them. However, considering the role of the other dealers, the penalties on Shri Sunil Agarwal and Shri Ramnivas Agarwal were reduced to Rs. 1 lakh each. The appeals filed by Shri Hasmukh Ganatra and Shri Nilesh Bansal were rejected, while the appeals filed by the other appellants were disposed of with the reduced penalties.
|
