9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for penalty under section 114AA - Further, as the appellant have acted only in his capacity as an employee and has not made any extra gain over salary of ₹ 15,000/- p.m., the penalty reduced to ₹ 1,12,500/- (being the amount already paid by way of pre-deposit). Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 52100 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 50765/2020 - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri M. N. Dubey Sh. P. Pathak, Advocates for the appellant Shri C. K. Jain, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant Shri Alip Kumar Das is in the appeal against the impugned order-in-original whereby he has been imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Section 114(iii) and ₹ 10 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant have been working as an Accountant in the office of one Shri Sajjan Kumar since 2010. The main responsibility of the appellant were - follow up with bank for ensuring payment to local buyers and receiving Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) in respect of realisation of goods exported. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. R. Goyal Sons (HUF), he allowed Shri Sajjan Kumar to run his business from his companies/firm. Shri Sajjan Kumar is involved in the fraudulent export by over invoicing to the extent of 92% to 140%, that SIIB, Delhi has registered a case against the company run by Shri Sajjan Kumar like M/s Durga Apparels Pvt. Limited, M/s Designer Innovation, M/s Om Shreem Ananda Foods (P) Limited, he allowed him (Shri Sajjan Kumar) to run his business activities from his firm/ company. On being asked about the bank statement for the period 06.07.2011 to 25.08.2011 of M/s Indus Chemitex Limited, Axis Bank Janakpuri, huge transactions to the tune of ₹ 29.18 crore have been made. He stated that he does not have any knowledge of this transaction, only Shri Sajjan Kumar was aware about the transactions and he can only explain. He had given blank cheques to Shri Sajjan Kumar. Further, they had authorised Shri Sajjan Kumar to sign all the documents required by the Customs Department. 8. Shri Sajjan Kumar had stated in his statement that Shri Rajeev Goyal of his friend was having ownership and control of M/s Indus Chemitex Limited and M/s S. R. Goyal Sons (HUF). It was agreed between him a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to DCC for certificate of origin singed by Shri Najib Memon also employee of Shri Sajjan Kumar. 10. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, show cause notice dated 23.08.2012 was issued proposing to reject the declared value and to re-determine the goods exported at the lower value in respect of 23 shipping bills exported from ICD, Tuglakabad, Delhi under DEPB claim with further proposal to revise the amount of DEPB and to scale down from ₹ 80,40,442/- to ₹ 5,76,760/-. It further proposed the goods for confiscation. 11. Similarly, for another set of 23 shipping bills declared value to be rejected and to re-determine at the lower value and accordingly with further proposal to revise the DEPB from ₹ 1,18,39,934/- to ₹ 10,50,154/- with proposal for confiscation. Similarly, further proposal with respect to some more shipping bills both of M/s Indus Chemitex Limited and M/s S. R. Goyal Sons (HUF) and also penalties proposed on Shri Rajeev Goyal, Shri Siyaram Goyal and Shri Sajjan Kumar. 12. This appellant was also made a co-noticee alongwith other employee Shri Shamsher Singh, calling upon to show cause why penalty under Section 114(iii) and Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k work and preparing invoices and packing list as per the direction of Shri Sajjan Kumar, which is an admitted fact. Admittedly, the appellant is not participating in the clearance of the fraudulent export by the said Shri Sajjan Kumar. Though the e-mail account of the appellant is used, all the correspondence have been done at the instance of Shri Sajjan Kumar. That there is no allegation in the show cause notice of any personal gain made by the appellant, same and axcept receiving his salary as an Accountant. 16. Section 114(iii) provides for penalty on any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113 or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is greater. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, there is no attempt on the part of the appellant to export goods improperly. Thus, the penalty under Section 114(iii) is not attracted. 17. Section 114AA provides for penalty if a person knowingly or intentionally makes, si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
