9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold him guilty of disputed imported goods. It is a settled law that no person shall be implicated in a crime merely on the basis of an allegation levelled by a co-accused, without any corroborative evidence. The role of the appellant in the present matter was argued by the department was to arrange finance and to purchase disputed goods from China and export to India. Ld. Consultant has opposed this argument on the ground that no evidences provided by the revenue in this regards. There are force in argument of Ld. Consultant. It is also noticed that no physical act of the appellant in relation to the goods in question has been brought out to justify the penalty on the appellant under the above sections. Penalty u/s 112 of CA - HELD THAT:- The entire case of the Revenue against the appellant is based upon the statements of the co noticees. It is well-established law that the statements of the co-noticees, unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence, do not constitute the legal evidence. There is nothing on record to establish by the revenue with documentary evidence that Appellant had abetted in the relation to disputed imported goods for purpose of impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r detention. Statements of various persons were recorded in this regards. Inquiry with Shri Gauarv Patel revealed that he had imported several items like assorted cosmetic items, electronic items, garments, ladies purse, oil filter etc. on earlier occasion also under Bill of Entry No. 7735855 dtd. 22.08.2018. The officers traced these goods from a premises in Pydhonie, Mumbai and placed the same under detention and shifted them to ICD, Thar (Sanand). It appeared that these were branded goods, opinion was taken from respective brand owners/right holder, etc. All of these opined that goods are counterfeit. After investigation, SCN dated 01-10-2019 was issued to importer and other persons including Appellant, proposing confiscation of the goods, demanding differential custom duty and proposing imposition of penalties under customs Act, 1962. In adjudication, Ld. Adjudicating Authority as regard the appellant has imposed the penalty under Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 by inter alia concluding that the role of the Appellant was to arrange finance and to purchase cosmetics, watches, laptop adapter, bags, belt, lingerie set, oil filter, headphone etc. of foreign br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the items from China and had been filing bill of entry for the said goods, the Appellant had every reason to believe that these goods were freely importable into India. 2.3 He also submits that on the above basis, the Appellant was not involved in shipping any incriminating goods into India or preparing or getting prepared any documents based on which Shri Gaurav Patel filed Bills of Entry with Customs House, Mundra. Hence, the Appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 3. On the other hand Shri Girish Nair, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal records. The short question arising for consideration is whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act is sustainable on facts and in law. 4.1 We find that the role of the Appellant in the whole episode has been derived only from the statement of Shri Gaurav Patel, Proprietor of M/s Dhairya International (Importer) and other co-accused. 4.2 We find that the proceeding only on the basis of statement of co-accused is not sufficient to hold the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en done at his place. Even there is no evidence of previous record of gold smuggling against him. The appellants Ravi Garg, Surinder Kumar Anand and Shyam Babu Verma have implicated Mohinder Singh but these statements which are self-implicating in nature, should have been confronted to Mohinder Singh. It is not sufficient to say that the summons were pasted on his shop and merely because he has not come forward to give statement to explain the allegation made against him by co-accused, therefore, the case against him stands proved. The principles of natural justice require that the accused in a matter is required to be confronted with the evidence, which the department has collected against him and full opportunity should be given to an accused to defend himself. It is not the case of the department that the address of Mohinder Singh is not correct. The postal remarks on the summons sent by the DRI shows that on repeated visits the shop was found to be closed and hence, the cover containing the summons were returned to the sender. The department officers cannot take this postal endorsement as refusal of summons and the appellant Mohinder Singh had knowledge of the case. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act and he acquired possession of or was in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which, he knew or had reason to believe, were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. As per the revenue the appellant had dealt with the goods by associating himself with the modus operandi of clearance of the goods. The role of the appellant in the present matter was argued by the department was to arrange finance and to purchase disputed goods from China and export to India. Ld. Consultant has opposed this argument on the ground that no evidences provided by the revenue in this regards. We also find force in argument of Ld. Consultant. We also noticed that no physical act of the appellant in relation to the goods in question has been brought out to justify the penalty on the appellant under the above sections. 4.5 We also observed that Section 112 ibid. has two limbs : either (a) or (b); no specific averment is made as to the role of the appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
