9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he actual contents - penalty u/s 112 upheld. Penalty u/s 114AA - Held that: - The appellant had used the false and incorrect gate pass and had caused to be used the said false declaration, statement and document - penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CUSAA No. 108/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar and Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate. SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Prashun Jain-appellant in this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 7th August, 2017 passed by the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions are wide enough to cover the acts of the appellant as brought out during the investigation. Considering that the evidences of such involvement in the past clearances are not available to a sustainable level and involvement in the present consignment had been established based on available evidence, we find that a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Section 114AA will meet the ends of justice. Other than this penalty, we find that the appellant cannot be put to any liability for duty or penalty, under Section 28 and 112 of the Act. 4. The appellant largely relied upon the findings of the Tribunal in the earlier portion of the order and has prayed for setting aside of penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the consignment and was present outside the clearance gate with the gate pass. It is also not disputed that the consignment was mis-declared and was not imported by M/s Rajdhani Crafts, Jaipur. Contents and value of the consignment is not challenged. 10. On the question of involvement of the appellant in ground (IX) to the present appeal, the appellant has accepted that he got involved with the subject goods, which he claims was with a view to providing helping hand to Mr.Biplav Kumar. The appellant also has accepted that he had also made a request for transportation of the goods and that he had prior knowledge and information about the mis-declaration of the goods and the actual contents. For convenience, ground (ix) of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods. Penalty under Section 114 of the Act could be imposed if a person knowingly or intentionally uses or causes to be made, signed or used any declaration/statement/ document, which was false and incorrect in material particulars. The appellant had used the false and incorrect gate pass and had caused to be used the said false declaration, statement and document. We do not, therefore, accept the contention of the appellant that Section 114AA of the Act cannot be invoked. The findings of the Tribunal on the question of involvement of the appellant are factual. We do not think that the said findings require interference on the ground that they are perverse. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
