2020 (6) TMI 459 - AT - Customs

Forged import licence - Imposition of penalty under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act - allegation that, the appellant have imported wireless transmitting/receiving apparatus, satellite communication equipment, etc. against the forged import licence purported to have been issued by the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC), Wing of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India. HELD THAT - Though the WPC approvals were not appropriately issued, the investigations have not brought out categorically whether the equipments imported and cleared on the strength of such forged WPC approvals were in violation of technical norms prescribed for such equipment for importation or not. Also, no findings in this regard have also been given in the impugned order-in-original. It is also noted that for the equipment which basically meet the technical specifications, the WPC approval were provided as a matter of routine and the appellants have actually been obtaining the required WPC approval from the concerned department but this fact also does not absolve the appellant from the omissions and commissions which have been committed by them in forging the WPC approval. Quantum of penalty is reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act.
2. Allegations of importing wireless communication equipment with forged WPC licenses.
3. Verification of the genuineness of WPC licenses.
4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act:
The appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, as confirmed by separate orders-in-original dated 05.05.2014 and 16.05.2014. The penalties were based on allegations that the appellant had imported wireless communication equipment using forged WPC licenses. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for amendment of the appeal to include additional grounds.

2. Allegations of Importing Wireless Communication Equipment with Forged WPC Licenses:
The Revenue alleged that the appellant imported equipment using forged import licenses purportedly issued by the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) Wing of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The equipment was supplied to various TV channels and communication companies. The investigation involved searches of the appellant's premises and statements from key personnel, revealing that fake WPC licenses were used for imports.

3. Verification of the Genuineness of WPC Licenses:
During the investigation, the WPC licenses were forwarded to the Department of Telecommunication for verification. The Department confirmed that several licenses were not genuine. Statements from various individuals, including Mr. Amit Mahajan and Mr. Sanjay Sachdeva, admitted to the forgery of WPC licenses. However, the appellant argued that the verification process was flawed and that the licenses were genuine, obtained through proper procedures.

4. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Fines and Penalties:
The show cause notice issued to the appellant and others proposed the confiscation of goods valued at ?99,65,131/- and the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act. The order-in-original confirmed the confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of ?20 lakhs and imposed penalties on the appellant and its employees. The Tribunal noted that while some WPC approvals were forged, the investigation did not categorically prove that the imported equipment violated technical norms. The Tribunal took a lenient view, reducing the penalties under Section 112 and setting aside the penalties under Section 114AA.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, reducing the penalties under Section 112 and setting aside the penalties under Section 114AA. The miscellaneous application for additional grounds was also allowed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification of the genuineness of WPC licenses and noted that the investigation did not conclusively prove technical violations of the imported equipment.

← Previous Next →