2024 (2) TMI 776 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - fraudulent import in the name of dummy IECs with mis-declaration in description and value inputs - whether the appellant has abetted the fraudulent export or he had acted in good faith? - HELD THAT - The appellant himself vide his statement has acknowledged that he was fully aware that Ajay and Kirit were using proxy importers using dummy IECs for importing goods from his port. Kirit and Ajay Sandhu both have admitted this in their statement. There is no apparent denial that there are 427 calls between the appellant and kirit during the impugned period and that the appellant was entertained many times by said Kirit in Kirit s guest house. Admittedly, the appellant also attended marriage of Kirit s son in Mumbai in January 2013 at Kirit s expense as his guest and had also availed the flight tickets for to fro travel for self and his family and stayed in five star hotel in Mumbai with family at kirit s expenses. The entire trip was financed by Kirit. A postpaid mobile SIM No. 8120100005, with appellant was also taken from kirit only. All these facts apparent on record are sufficient to hold that appellant was intentionally aiding kirit and all his associates to let them commit illegal imports. Hence, we hold that there are sufficient ingredients for commission of offence by the appellant. The Appellant was well aware about the proxy imports of Ajay and Kirit which were being cleared from a non-EDI port which was under the Appellant's control. Being the in charge of the customs port it was his duty to discourage this fraudulent practice. However, he not only kept mum but also encouraged the proxy importers to undertake such proxy imports from his port and even facilitated such proxy importers which clearly show his connivance in promoting the fraudulent practices. Kirit and Ajay have admitted in various statements that they were importing goods in proxy, using dummy IECs and cleared the said goods from ICD Dhannad/ Kheda on the strength of manipulated invoices showing only a few items, which grossly understated values to evade duty. The appellant s own statement afford sufficient corroboration to those statements. Cross-examination is vital for meeting out the allegations But when there is sufficient corroboration to those allegations, denial of cross-examination cannot be held prejudicial - the CDR produced on record showing 427 numbers of calls made by the appellant to Kirit Singh during the relevant time are too many in number to prove that there was no bonafide or reasonableness on part of appellant. Phonecalls as many as 427 calls to one single person, do not justify the defence taken that the purpose was only to ascertain the whereabouts. There are no infirmity in the order under challenge, the same is therefore upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the import of 189 consignments using dummy IECs.
2. Alleged abetment by the appellant in the illegal importation and the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Legality of the import of 189 consignments using dummy IECs:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original dated 30.07.2019, which held that 189 consignments were imported using dummy IECs from ICD Dhannad/Kheda between December 2011 and May 2013. The CIF value declared for these consignments was rejected and reassessed, leading to a demand for differential duty and confiscation of goods. The investigation revealed that the goods were misdeclared and undervalued to evade customs duties. The imports were part of a criminal conspiracy involving multiple individuals and entities, including the appellant, who facilitated these illegal imports.

2. Alleged abetment by the appellant in the illegal importation and the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant was alleged to have abetted the illegal import of goods by misdeclaring their description and value. The appellant argued that the allegations were based on conjectures and that no concrete evidence was provided. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had knowledge of the illegal imports and intentionally aided the importers. The appellant's actions, including frequent communications with the main conspirators and receiving benefits from them, indicated his involvement in the fraudulent imports. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as he was found to have abetted the illegal imports. The appeal was dismissed, and the order under challenge was upheld.