Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (1) TMI 1148 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Involvement of Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh in the attempted removal of imported goods.
2. Role of Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey in the foiled smuggling attempt.
3. Liability of Shri Abhishek Mishra in the use of forged documents.
4. Responsibility of M/s. Krishna Logistics Management as the CHA.
5. Compliance failures by M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Involvement of Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh:
Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh was identified as the central figure ("kingpin") in the attempted removal of valuable cargo from Customs-Custodian by using forged documents. He received instructions from Ms. Sonia of Hong Kong to remove the cargo without filing a bill of entry, promising a remuneration of Rs.750/- per kg. He used the IEC of M/s. Shankeshwar Impex and worked closely with Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey to execute the plan. His involvement was confirmed through his own admissions and corroborated by other evidence. The penalties imposed on him are Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 112 and Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 114 AA, which were confirmed and his appeal was rejected.

2. Role of Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey:
Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey actively connived in the smuggling attempt, using forged documents with knowledge of their nature. He directed others to remove the goods without filing a bill of entry. Despite being an employee of M/s. Shankeshwar Impex, the penalty imposed on him was considered disproportionate. The penalties were reduced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112 and from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 114 AA.

3. Liability of Shri Abhishek Mishra:
Shri Abhishek Mishra, an H-Card Holder employed with CHA firm M/s Aeroship Logicare Pvt. Ltd., was involved in the attempted removal by using a forged gate pass. Although he claimed to act without knowledge of the forgery, the evidence suggested otherwise. The penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112 was confirmed, but the penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 114 AA was set aside, acknowledging that he did not directly forge the documents.

4. Responsibility of M/s. Krishna Logistics Management:
M/s. Krishna Logistics Management acted in good faith as a CHA, filing the bill of entry on a first check basis and requesting examination of the goods. There was no evidence of their involvement in the smuggling attempt. Consequently, their appeal was allowed, and the penalties imposed were set aside.

5. Compliance Failures by M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.:
M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. was not directly involved in the smuggling attempt but had lapses in internal control procedures. These lapses allowed the smuggling attempt to occur. They informed Customs of the incident promptly after the holidays. The penalty under Regulation 12 (8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 was reduced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, and the penalty under Section 112 was set aside.

Summary of Judgments:
- Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh: Penalties of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 112 and Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 114 AA confirmed. Appeal rejected.
- Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey: Penalties reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112 and Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 114 AA. Appeal allowed in part.
- Shri Abhishek Mishra: Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112 confirmed, penalty under Section 114 AA set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
- M/s. Krishna Logistics Management: Appeal allowed, penalties set aside.
- M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.: Penalty under Regulation 12(8) reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-, penalty under Section 112 set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates