9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 112(b) of the Act is attracted for imposing penalty - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50503 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 50679/2022 - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The issue in this appeal is whether penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been correctly imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 of the Customs Act. 2. The appellant is working as clearing agent of imported goods, but not having any CHA/CB license. Till 2007 the appellant had dealings with Sh. Habib-uz-Zaman who was involved in import of goods. Habib- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, was found to contain only a few corrugated boxes (106 Nos.) and the remaining container had the cigarettes of foreign origin of different brands viz. GUDANG GARAM International , Red Black and DJARUM BLACK . Detailed investigation revealed role of various persons including the appellant in the import of said container. 4. This appellant came to know about improper import by Habib-uz-Zaman only when he was called by the customs officer for recording of his statement on 03.02.2017 followed by another statement on 19.04.2017. The appellant categorically denied having any knowledge about the mischief of cigarette import by Habib-uz-Zaman. This appellant categorically stated that he was not involved in the improper import of cigarette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely upheld the findings of the original authority. He was incorrectly held that the appellant did not rebut the findings of original authority. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. On facts, the role of appellant was only to arrange meeting between Devi Das and Habib-uz-Zaman and the appellant neither filed the bill of entry or was involved in clearance of goods. Any action on the part of appellant much before the import of goods could not be made basis to invoke penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act. 9. It is further urged that the lower authority has wrongly held that since the appellant facilitated the misuse of IEC, he was to be treated as he was involved in said particular import of cigarettes, whereas there was not an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relies judgment of Apex Court in the case of Amrit Food Ltd., -2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC) which has been followed in number of cases. For ready reference, the appellant is relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mahavir Wire Industries vs. CCE -2016 (335) ELT 159 (Tri. Del.). It is further urged that appellant also relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Green Port Shipping Agency vs. CC-2021 (378) ELT 458 (Tri. Del.) wherein it has been held that no penalty can be imposed without proving the role of person being charged. Learned Counsel accordingly prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 11. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 12. Having considered the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
