2019 (6) TMI 277 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on appellant-CHA - abetting in the mis-declaration of the imported goods - HELD THAT - In going through the Order in Original the role of Appellant was shown to be the main person behind the whole case and that is based on the statement of Shri Pansare who had claimed before the CHA that he has taken up with Shri C.R. Shukla and the statement of Shri Anwar saying that he had financial dealing with M/s. Gaylord Impex one of the importer and the fact that there are some call records showing conversation between the person involved, other than this no evidence has been brought to justify the imposition of penalty to Shri R. C. Shukla. It has not been brought out as to the exact role he played in rendering the case liable for confiscation in the Show Cause Notice nor the adjudication authority conclude that he would have been benefitted in any manner had the import been through. He understandably the revenue cannot conclude with a clinical precision. However the case cannot be built on the basis of vague statement of the co-accused and more existence of call records. It is reinforced by the fact that no evidence of any sort has been found during the search of the Appellant residence. It is also not clear whether investigation could reach of the actual importer. In such situation imposition of penalty on the Appellant without properly establishing his role is not acceptable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of imported goods, imposition of penalty on the Appellant based on alleged involvement in the importation scheme.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Mis-declaration of imported goods
The case involved importers who declared goods as Walkman, Radios, and Rechargeable Lanterns but were found to contain different items upon examination. The mis-declaration led to the seizure of the goods and the issuance of Show Cause Notices. The Commissioner confirmed the penalties imposed on the importers, including the Appellant, based on allegations of mis-declaration and involvement in the importation scheme.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on the Appellant
The Appellant denied committing any acts rendering the goods liable for confiscation under various sections. The Appellant argued that he did not entertain the person who approached him for help in clearing the imports and that no evidence was found during searches at his residence and office. The Appellant contended that penalties were imposed based on vague observations and presumptions, without concrete evidence linking him to the mis-declared goods. The Appellant emphasized that penalties cannot be levied solely on the basis of statements from co-accused without corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Adjudication and findings
The Adjudication authority imposed significant penalties on the Appellant, citing his alleged role as the main person behind the importation scheme. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented, such as statements from co-accused and call records, was insufficient to justify the penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence linking the Appellant to the mis-declared goods and the absence of any incriminating evidence found during searches. The Tribunal concluded that penalties cannot be imposed solely based on vague statements and the existence of call records without substantial supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the Appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and the need to establish a clear link between the accused and the alleged wrongdoing before imposing penalties. The judgment underscored that penalties should not be imposed on vague grounds or solely based on statements from co-accused without corroborative evidence.