9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e names of firms M/s. Ambey Sales Agencies, M/s. Hindustan Agencies and M/s. Rajasthan Enterprises. The licenses produced by them for the said clearances were found to be bogus /forged. The appellants namely, Shri Prakash Poonia, Transporter, Shri P.A. Vasudevan and Shri M.E. Karunakaran alias Raghu both were employee of M/s. Unique Shipping Services Pvt. Limited, the CHA, Shri K.V. Gopalakrishnan and Shri Ajay Kumar N., both were Directors of M/s. Unique Shipping Services Pvt. Limited, who handled the licenses and got cleared the goods. The adjudicating authorities have found that they were directly or indirectly involved in the clearances of the goods without payment of duty against these forged/bogus DEEC licenses. Penalties were imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of the appellants it appear that appellants were having the knowledge of forged licenses nor any corroborative evidence was produced by the department to establish that appellants were having the knowledge of the forged licenses while the above said goods. They further submitted that the importer pf the goods namely More Group gave them the licenses to get clearances of the goods which they produced before the Customs Authorities, who after examining the said licenses, allowed the duty free clearances of the goods. They further submitted that when the documents were produced to Customs authorities and they have examined and the goods were al lowed to be cleared, how can it be presumed that the appellants having the knowledge of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the client cannot be penalized on the ground of abetment of any offence of the client, penalty not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that appellants were having knowledge of forged documents against which they got the goods cleared and mis-declaration in the import documents led to confiscation of goods and the goods are liable for confiscation on account of mis-declaration which amounts to aiding and abetment and for their act, the appellants are liable for penal action and accordingly, the lower authorities have rightly imposed penalties on the appellants. In support of his contention, learned SDR placed reliance on decision in the case of Satish Gupta v. Commissioner of Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
