9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be subjected to penalty for violation of law and/or attempted smuggling by importer and/or CHA – There is no finding against appellant to aiding and abetting, save and except preparation of purported letter on behalf of Shipper on his computer – Therefore composite penalty imposed on appellant set aside – Decided in favour of Appellant. - Appeal No. C/713/12 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Anil Balani, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Senthilnathan, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: The appellant, Rashid Yakub Shaikh, is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 249 250 (Gr.IV) 2012 (JNCH) IMP-211 212 dated 25.4.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries, the CHA firm and also the present appellant. It is alleged in the show-cause notice, so far the present appellant is concerned, that the appellant came with importer Shri Satpal Singh Walia on 16.9.2008 for inspection of the goods in question and introduced himself as a partner of the CHA firm, but no identity card was produced. The imported goods were examined on 16/9/2008 in the presence of the appellant and the importer by the Superintendent (Docks) and the CIU staff. On examination, the discrepancies as aforementioned were noted. The examination report was endorsed on the Bill of Entry and was signed by the officials as well as by the importer Shri Satpal Singh Walia and also by the present appellant as a witness. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for filing his reply to the show-cause notice. The request for the aforementioned relied upon documents etc. was again repeated by appellant's letter dated 25.1.2010. Reply to show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant on 14.10.2010, wherein all the allegations were denied and it was further stated that he had not committed any acts or omissions or aided or abetted any person in question. It was further stated that his role in the matter was limited to introduce Shri S.S. Walia to the CHA firm and was a witness of the examination of the consignment on 16.9.2008. He had no knowledge of any sort of mis-declaration or attempt of smuggling of the said imported goods, by the importer. 2.2 Vide Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2011, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/or the CHA. The appellant have not prepared and/or signed any documents save and except signing the examination report as witness, when he had gone to the Customs area with the importer at the time of inspection. Save and except the allegation of preparing the purported letter on behalf of the Shipper, on his computer, no other contumacious conducts have been found against the appellant. The learned Counsel further relies on the Division Bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep S Mehta vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (246) ELT 518, wherein a combined/composite penalty was imposed under Section 112(a), 112(b)(ii), 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act. This Tribunal has held that a composite or combined penalty cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
