9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t connive with a person he does not know or has not met. Further, the appellant, as the employee of the CHA firm, G-Card Holder, has only filed the bill of entry on the basis of the documents received by him from the representative of the importer. There is no allegation of forging or manipulation of any documents by the appellant. Further, there is no case or allegation that the appellant knowingly made wrong declaration in the bills of entry on behalf of the importer. Further, there is no statement by any co-noticee or other person suggesting connivance or knowledge of any mis-declaration on the part of this appellant - It is inappropriate interpretation on the part of the Adjudicating Authority that under Regulation 11 (n) of CBLR, it is required to make physical verification of his clients address, IEC No. and other KYC documents. The appellant-CHA firm had known the said Shri Deepak Kapoor Intermediary, who was bringing them the clearance work on regular basis. Further, the said Shri Deepak Kapoor was also known to Mr. Narinder Narula, Proprietor of the CHA firm. The appellant, being employee of the CHA firm, placed great reliance on Mr. Kapoor and thus, was negligent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962, inter alia stated that: (i) Shri Deepak Kapoor was a common friend of his and Shri Narinder Narula, the CHA, and used to bring clients for Customs clearance to their company; (ii) Shri Deepak Kapoor had requested him to the file documents for clearance of the goods imported by M/s Pixel Overseas and after scrutiny, he informed Shri Deepak Kapoor that the documents did not contain PAN Card and attested copy of IEC of the importer which were required as per KYC norms and that the importer will be required to pay the duty either directly online or through cheque/ draft; (iii) Shri Deepak had informed him that there were 1208 pieces of two burner gas stoves as declared in the import documents; (iv) Shri Deepak came to him with the duty amount in cash and a bank draft of ₹ 48,800/- in the name of CONCOR and requested for keeping the cash and for paying the duty amount online through the CHA account till he arranges the duty amount in cheque from the importer and further informed that one Shri Sonu, employee of the importer was coming with the PAN card and the copy of IEC; (v) The Appellant informed Shri Deepak that further action like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments, he never turned up. 8. Statement of Ms. Saheema Khan @ Saheema Khan , W/of Anis Khan, 220 A, J Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, Proprietor of M/s. Pixel Overseas was recorded on 13.08.2013 wherein she, inter alia, stated that:- She opened the said company in the name of M/s.Pixel Overseas in February, 2012 and was running the same from a rented premises at N-60, Jagat Ram Park, Main Bazar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092; She got IEC for the said company on 18.07.2012 and was in business of export of carpets to Dubai; She was the sole proprietor and had employed four persons; Mr. Izhar Khan was looking after the work of purchases and bank account etc. while other employees assisted her; Her CHA was M/s.Exim Cargo Services, Patli Gurgaon and she had never imported or exported any goods from China or any other country except Dubai; After seeing the panchnama dated 30.03.2013 along with other documents, she stated that she had seen the said documents for the first time and she was not aware on whose instructions these documents were prepared, she has not given any instructions to CHA, M/s.GND Cargo Movers to file B/E on behalf of her company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot aware as to how many persons were employed in her company and how they were paid. She was also not aware as to who was the CHA for the company. She knew that Ramesh Wadhera was running the company and Shri Izhar Siddique was in constant touch with him; 10. Searches were conducted at the office and residential premises of Shri Ramesh Wadhera but nothing incriminating was recovered; during search of the office cum residential premises of Mr. Izhar Siddique @ Khan, certain documents relating to M/s Pixel Overseas were recovered; 11. As per the market enquiry, the value of seized goods was ₹ 1,36,56,080/- as per Table 6 of the impugned order; 12. Import of the undeclared goods namely R-22 Gas Cylinders and Salaam Mishri was allegedly an illegal import in terms of Section 11A(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and these goods were allegedly prohibited goods in terms of Section 2(33) of the Act and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j),(l) and (m) of the Act; the Gas Stoves had been imported without following the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 which rendered the Goods prohibited for import and further as the goods had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (j), (l) and (m) read with Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and holding M/s Pixel Overseas liable to penalty of ₹ 2,04,84,120/- under Section 112(a) 114AA; Mr. Izhar Siddique @ Izhar Khan and Shri Ramesh Wadhera liable to penalty of ₹ 1,36,56,080/- each, under Section 112@ and Shri Deepak Kapoor liable to a penalty of ₹ 34,14,020 under Section 112(a), also imposed a penalty of ₹ 34,14,020/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 16. Being aggrieved on imposition of penalty, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that the Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant was aware of all the affairs, which led to filing of the bills of entry for the alleged illegal imports made. Section 112 provides for penalty on two types of persons, viz (a) A person, who by his act or omission in relation to any goods renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act or abets the doing or omission to do such an Act or; (b) A person, who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no offence in receiving the clearance business through known intermediary. So far the allegation that the appellant has accepted the clearance work directly from Shri Deepak Kapoor without even informing Mr. Narinder Narula, Proprietor of CHA firm. It is urged that Mr. Deepak Kapoor was a known intermediary and on several occasions had brought business to Shri Narinder Narula or clearance. Such work was regularly accepted and handled by the CHA firm. Further, by way of practice, all the work done by the firm is informed to the proprietor Mr. Narinder Narula, henever he is out of station, by one of the employees. Only for the reason that this appellant has not given direct information to Mr. Narinder Narula about the disputed consignment, does not lead to inevitable conclusion of the connivance with Shri Deepak Kapoor or with the actual importer, Shri Ramesh Wadhera. Further, the named importer, Mrs. Saheema Khan, Prop. of Piexel Overseas has been found and traced by the Revenue in the course of investigation. Mrs. Saheema Khan has also accepted that she is the holder of IEC and further, she was in the partnership in the Import and Export business with Ramesh Wadhera, throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd.-2015(329) ELT 269 (T-Mum.) 15. L.M.S. Transport Co. -2014 (299) ELT 368 (Tri- Mum.) Importer s Address found to be correct and existing ; it was not appellant s responsibility to conduct physical verification: 16. Thawerdas Wadoomal -2008 (221) ELT 252 (T-Mumbai) 17. Setwin Shipping Agency - 2010(250) ELT 141 (Tribunal-Mumbai) 24. Opposing the appeal, ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relies on the findings in the impugned order. He further urges that the appellant has admittedly handled the clearance work without caring to receive the proper documents complying with the KYC requirements and further, has erred in receiving the documents for clearance through an intermediary Deepak Kapoor, without knowing the actual importer, nor taking care to know the actual importer with reasonable diligence before filing the bills of entry, and thus, abetted in the offence of the import of the prohibited goods. 25. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant-CHA firm had known the said Shri Deepak Kapoor Intermediary, who was bringing them the clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
