9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The same view is taken in CHANDRA SHEKHAR R. SHUKLA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (IMPORTS) [ 2019 (6) TMI 277 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and hence, factually, the case on hand stands on a different footing. But however, considering the above facts and circumstances, the quantum of penalty which is normally levied as a deterrent, is very high and hence, the same is directed to be reduced to ₹ 10,000/-. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Authority, except that the amount of penalty which is ordered to be reduced to ₹ 10,000/- - appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 40019 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40053 / 2022 - Dated:- 4-2-2022 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2017 was issued on the grounds of specific intelligence received by the Revenue s Intelligence Unit (DIU) to seven persons / business entities. It is alleged in the Show Cause Notice, inter alia, that Bill-of-Entry No. 7994544 dated 28.12.2016 was filed by Customs Broker M/s. Unique Line, Chennai; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to examine Mr. Ravichandran who, as indicated by Mr. A. Prabakaran, had introduced Mr. Sugumar. In his statement, Mr. Ravichandran is said to have revealed that it was Mr. Jayakumar, a staff of M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. (Customs Broker firm), who had introduced Mr. Sugumar to him at Customs House, Chennai; that Mr. Sugumar told him about many import consignments he was having, for which Bill-of-Entry was required to be filed through some Customs Broker and that is how he introduced Mr. Sugumar to Mr. Prabakaran; that he did not ask Mr. Sugumar on whose behalf was he intending to file the Bills-of-Entry; that Mr. Sugumar had told him that he had got few importers for whom he wanted to do clearance work and that he did not know anything about M/s. J.J. Enterprises and nor about its proprietor. 3.2 Based on the above, the Revenue issued summons to Mr. Jayakumar, who inter alia is said to have deposed that he knew Mr. Ravichandran for the past five years; that Sugumar had worked with him in M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. for more than eight years and had left the above firm about two years back; that based on good faith, he had introduced Mr. Sugumar to Mr. Ravich ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions he received the documents like Bill-of-Lading No. 958301066 dated 07.12.2016, invoice and packing list through DHL Courier directly from China; that KYC documents including authorization and IEC number of M/s. J.J. Enterprises were couriered to him by Mr. Simmerjith Singh; that Mr. Simmerjith told him that the consignment imported vide Bill of Lading in question belonged to M/s. J.J. Enterprises, whose proprietor was Mr. Simmerjith s friend, whom he did not even meet; that at the time when he received the KYC documents of M/s. J.J. Enterprises, he was aware of its location, but he did not visit the said firm; that he handed over the said documents to Mr. Sugumar for Customs clearance and that he only acted as an agent between the importer and the Customs Broker as it was the duty of the Customs Broker to fulfil the obligations under the Customs Broker Regulations. 5. The said Show Cause Notice, based on these statements, summarizes that the appellant had received the Bill-of-Lading in question along with packing list and KYC documents from Mr. Simmerjith Singh of Hyderabad, but he did not furnish the complete address of Mr. Simmerjith nor did he reveal the identity of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings that the appellant knowingly received documents from Mr. Simmerjith Singh of Hyderabad; that the First Appellate Authority committed gross judicial impropriety in traversing beyond the scope of the Notice to record the finding otherwise also, from the records, the appellant appears to be a known, repeated offender , without the appellant being a repeated offender; that the First Appellate Authority has erred in sustaining the impugned penalty without considering and understanding that the penalty under Section 112 (a) ibid. was mandated only when a person renders the imported goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 ibid.; and that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in Proprietor, Carmel Exports Imports v. Commr. of Cus., Cochin reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 505 (Kerala) and that of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Hamid Fahim Ansari v. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) wherein the courts have clearly held that lending of IEC by one to another was not an offence under the FTDR Act. 7.2 He relied on the following decisions/orders: (i) M/s. R.S. Im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is worth noting here that Mr. Sugumar is a G-Card holder whereas the appellant herein was possessing F-Card . From the statement of Mr. A. Prabakaran, Proprietor of M/s. Unique Line, it is clear that he was induced by Mr. Sugumar to present necessary papers for Customs clearance in respect of the Bill-of-Entry in question, by quoting the disputed IEC in question. By the statement of Mr. Sugumar, it becomes quite clear that it was the appellant who induced him to get Customs clearance of the goods in question, including the one covered under the disputed IEC. 13.2 The above shifts the onus on to the appellant to discharge his liability, but the appellant, on the other hand, having named one Mr. Simmerjith Singh of Hyderabad as to the person who gave him the documents pertaining to the IEC holder M/s. J.J. Enterprises and upon whose instructions he received the B/L in question from China, including the KYC documents, has not given any palpable evidence, including the proper address of Mr. Simmerjith Singh. 14. It is worthwhile to mention here that up to this stage, the sequence of events have been correctly vouched by all the co-noticees, in which even the identified pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
