2016 (8) TMI 1074 - AT - Customs

Notice for penalty under Customs Act for wrongful import of a car - Held that - The charge on the appellant in the show-cause notice was that he had aided and abetted Shri Ashok Kumar Dhanak and finalise the import of car in a fraudulent manner resulting in evasion of duty. The sequence of events as narrated by the appellant in his first statement clearly shows that he was the one who organized the import of the car and used the passport of Shri Ashok Kumar Dhanak for import of the car. It was him who had identified the car imported. The statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Dhanak dated 30/07/201 corroborated the initial version of the statement of the appellants. From these circumstances, it is apparent that the retraction made by the appellant is an afterthought and therefore, needs to be discarded.In view of the above, there is a clear role of the appellant in the wrongful import of the car and charges under Section 112B are sustainable. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under Customs Act for wrongful import of a car; Appellant's role as a broker in the import; Retraction of statement by the appellant; Allegations of aiding and abetting in fraudulent import leading to duty evasion.

Analysis:
The appellant was issued a penalty notice under the Customs Act concerning his involvement in the wrongful import of a car, despite not being the actual importer. The appellant contended that he was merely a broker and had no direct role in the import process. However, his initial statement detailed his active participation in the import process, including using another individual's passport for TR concessions, organizing the import, and handling financial transactions related to the car. The appellant's retraction of the statement was deemed an afterthought, as corroborated by the statement of the actual importer, further solidifying the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent import scheme.

The Tribunal reviewed the appellant's statements and the sequence of events, concluding that the appellant played a significant role in the wrongful import of the car, aiding and abetting in the fraudulent scheme. Despite the appellant's claims of being a mere broker, the evidence presented established his direct involvement in organizing the import process, utilizing another individual's passport, and handling financial transactions related to the car. The retraction of the initial statement was considered unreliable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of charges under Section 112B for the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent import scheme, resulting in duty evasion.

In light of the detailed analysis of the appellant's statements and the corroborating evidence from the actual importer, the Tribunal found the appellant's role in the wrongful import of the car to be substantial, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the sustainability of charges under Section 112B. The judgment highlights the importance of thoroughly examining the facts and circumstances surrounding import-related penalties to ensure accountability and prevent fraudulent practices in customs processes.