9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant attempted to clear restricted goods fraudulently under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Justification of the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the appellant attempted to clear restricted goods fraudulently under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962: The appellant was accused of trying to clear 2 lakh pieces of Tungsten discs valued at Rs. 1.60 lakh on behalf of a non-existing firm, M/s Deep Trading Co., by filing a Bill of Entry (B/E) through an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA). The learned advocate for the appellant denied that the appellant had filed the B/E for the said goods and claimed that the person identified as Jagmohan Singh, the proprietor of M/s Deep Trading Co., was different from the appellant. The appellant also argued that he had not been identified by the CHA employee, Subhash Dhingra, as the person who signed the B/E. The learned SDR reiterated the order in original, which was based on the statement of Subhash Dhingra. The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated and offered to be confronted by Subhash Dhingra to determine his identity. However, he failed to appear before the Assistant Collector (AC) despite several summonses. The order in original concluded that the appellant was the same Jagmohan Singh named by Subhash Dhingra and held the charge as proved based on the preponderance of probability, confirming the penalty imposed. 2. Justification of the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962: One member of the tribunal, S.D. Mohile, upheld the penalty, stating that the charge was proved based on the preponderance of probability. However, another member, S.L. Peeran, disagreed, arguing that the department had not proved its case. Peeran emphasized that the statement of Subhash Dhingra was not corroborated by any other evidence, and the appellant was not confronted with Dhingra to establish his identity. He also pointed out that the department failed to get the signatures on the B/E and letterhead of M/s Deep Trading Co. verified by a handwriting expert. Peeran concluded that the department had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus, the imposition of the penalty was not justified. The case was referred to a third member, G.R. Sharma, due to the difference of opinion. Sharma agreed with Peeran, noting that the only evidence against the appellant was the uncorroborated statement of Subhash Dhingra. He highlighted that the appellant and Dhingra were never confronted to establish the appellant's identity, and the signatures were not verified. Sharma concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the penalty, and thus, the appeal should be allowed. Final Order: Based on the majority opinion, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 35,000/- imposed on the appellant was set aside.
|
