9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re concerned. When the appellant is in no way concerned with the goods in question, the very act on his part to get the same removed itself proves the mala fide intention on his part and therefore, the same is held to be sufficient to justify penalizing under Section 112(b)(i) ibid. This itself will sufficiently take care of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, by which the intention of the appellant stands clearly exposed inasmuch as he not only assumed the role of importer, but also was responsible for impersonation as an Import Staff. The appellant has repeatedly and merely claimed that there was nothing on record to evidence his role, other than the statement of Mr. Haarif (alias Saravana Balan), who is also a co-noticee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner for the Revenue. 3. I have considered the rival contentions, have gone through the written submission filed by the appellant as well as the decisions/orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 4. Brief facts, as could be gathered after hearing both the parties, which are relevant for my consideration, inter alia, are that the appellant was one of the Directors of the company known as M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., a Licensed Customs Broker under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations duly licensed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and later resigned from the company on 31.12.2018; that one container bearing No. MSKU4801081, covered by Bill-of-Lading No. 576238712 dated 09.05.2018 was imported into the Nhava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In response to the Show Cause Notice issued proposing inter alia to levy penalty under Section 112(b)(i) ibid., the appellant filed a detailed reply; that Order-in-Original No. 75963/2020 dated 31.08.2020 was passed whereby the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the penalty on the appellant as proposed, and that thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal having rejected the same, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6. The crux of the arguments advanced for the appellant, inter alia, are that:- (i) The attempt to clear the imported goods neither under the Customs Act nor under the specific provision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n presume any attempt to illegally remove the container, particularly when the CFS had subsequently reported that the container had not been tampered and was intact; (v) The casual and irresponsible finding recorded in the impugned order as if the other persons have implicated the involvement of the appellant in the alleged attempt to illegally remove the container, even when no such statements existed or allegations were made in the Show Cause Notice and when in his statement the appellant had categorically denied his involvement with the subject import, totally exposes the height of judicial bias and non-application of mind on the part of the First Appellate Authority, which requires the impugned order to be quashed; (vi) The First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact remains, as could be seen from paragraph 5 of the Show Cause Notice, that the goods as per the transhipment permit documents consigned to M/s. SSHS Centex Impex Pvt. Ltd., D-1A-69, Ground Floor, D Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi vide Bill-of-Lading No. 576238712 dated 09.05.2018 were 25250 kgs. of PVC Reflective Sheets whereas upon examination, the goods in the container were found to be soft plastic sheets, shoes of different brands (brands: Nike, Adidas, Reebok) and cosmetic items (brands: Lakme, Mac, Huda, Wellastrate). This mismatch / mis-declaration was clearly with an intention to smuggle, probably the duplicate / counterfeit items. 8. It is clear from the above that it was the appellant claiming himself to be the importer who e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consignment knowing fully well that he is neither the owner nor the importer and that the goods in question did not belong to him. 9. There is no dispute as to the fact that by virtue of there being an attempt to smuggle items contrary to the prevailing rules and regulations, the goods have become liable for confiscation and hence, have been confiscated within the meaning of Section 111(d) ibid., for the violations as indicated by the Adjudicating Authority [paragraphs 41 (d), (e), (f) and (g)]. It is thus clear that there was an attempt to smuggle the fake / duplicate / counterfeit goods contrary to the prevailing rules and regulations by impersonating Mr. Saravana Balan and impersonating by the appellant as the importer himself, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
