9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roker had filed Bill of Entry dated 03.05.2016 on behalf of the importer namely M/s.Vaaraahi Traders. As per the import documents, the goods were 50 ml. Water Bottles and the weight declared was 8345 Kgs. It was also noted that the importer had claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 claiming the exemption from payment of 4% SAD. The Department was of the view that the imported goods did not fulfil the criteria stipulated in the said notification. Based on intelligence gathered by SIIB that the consignment contained undeclared goods as well as the excess quantity, the consignment was subjected to examination. It was found in excess of 9340 Kgs. as against the declared weight of 8345 Kgs. Thus, there was excess w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is that they dealt with the unauthorized person other than the IEC holder. The entire case of the department is based on statements. During investigation, Shri S. Raja, husband of the Proprietrix of M/s.Vaaraahi Traders stated that he was fully aware of the import made by Shri A. Govindaraj using the IE Code of M/s.Vaaraahi Traders and also he was aware that clearing works were done by the appellant. Merely based upon these statements, the appellant has been held responsible. The appellant has been charged with violation of various provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In fact, the appellant has exercised due diligence by collecting the IEC, KYC and import documents directly from the importer namely M/s.Vaaraahi Traders. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the appellant has dealt only with Shri A. Govindaraj is wholly misconceived. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Ld. A.R Shri S. Balakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The appellant is aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The said section reads as under : "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Any person, - (a) 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 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest." 10. The case of the department is that the goods which are imported are intended for use of Shri A. Govindaraj and that not for the benefit of the importer himself. The Customs Act does not say that the goods imported should be used by the importer only and that importer ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
