9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned goods on the importer, and specifically on Mr Gyan Prakash Nirmal, based on the investigations evidences available with the Department. There is not even a whisper of any advice or action undertaken by the appellant to facilitate or abet the said misdeclaration. There is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had connived/abetted with the importers in filing the Bills of Entry for importing the said products, without the mandatory documents. It is also noted that the impugned order for the said offence has already penalized the importer in terms of redemption fine and penalty. Hence, penalty under Section 112(a) can be imposed only if there is evidence of abetment by the appellant. Conclusion - As there is nothing on record to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned goods under CTH 844332 as per the advice of the Importer and in accordance with the description of the goods. In December 2011, the officers of DRI, Ahmedabad initiated investigations against importer and in the course of investigation summoned Sh. Lalit Chander Sharma, G card holder and Director of the appellant. In compliance to the summons, Shri Lalit Chander Sharma appeared before DRI and tendered his voluntary statement. On completion of investigation, the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice No. DRI/AZU/GRU/46/2012 dated 12.06.2012 on the basis of perverse inferences and proposed penalty on the appellant as the appellant had filed the subject Bills of Entry. The appellant submitted its detailed written reply inter alia denying all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Act, makes it implicit that the person charged, who is alleged to have abetted the acts of omission or commission, has knowledge and is aware of the said acts. A plain meaning of the word 'abet' means instigation, aid, encouragement of an offence. It necessarily involves the knowledge that the act being abetted is wrong. In support, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- Shree Ram vs. State of U.P [1975 3 SCC 495] Amritlakshmi Machine Works vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2016 (335) ELT 225] Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. TrinetraImpex Private Limited [2020 (372) ELT 332 (Del.)] Rajeev Khatri vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) 3.1 Therefore, he submitted that the DRI had fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s contention that the impugned machines were classified by M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. under CTH 84433290 and 84433250 and they had not suggested any CTH for these indicates that they had towed the line of their client even though they were aware that the earlier machine was classified under CTH 84433990 by them in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2409364 dated 08.12.2012. They were also aware that a refund claim had been filed. Ld. AR further stated that M/s Zion, CHA was not working independently and judiciously as required by the Customs law. In commercial invoice No. XP 356 dated 11.08.2011, the manufacturer/supplier had mentioned the description of goods as inkjet printer and customs tariff heading No. 84433250. Apparently, by not raisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : i. The appellant is a registered Customs Broker in Delhi since 1988. ii. The appellant regularly filed the Bills of Entry for the importer viz., M/s Kajaria Ceramics for past 8 years. iii. They have filed the impugned Bills of Entry 7. What needs to be established is whether there was abetment of the appellant in the misdeclaration of the imported goods. It is on record that the statement of Shri Gyan Prakash Nirmal, Vice President of the importer has never implicated the appellant in the act of alleged misdeclaration of the imported goods. The impugned order vide para 81 categorically places the responsibility of the misdeclaration of the impugned goods on the importer, and specifically on Mr Gyan Prakash Nirmal, based on the investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narayan and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, [2021-378 ELT 298 (Tri. Bang)] the Tribunal held that: 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the Revenue has not been able to bring any evidence on record which shows that the appellant had prior knowledge regarding the violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. Further I find that this Tribunal in its Final Order No. 20523/2019, dated 4-7-2019 reduced the penalties imposed on the passenger after holding that there was no suppression of facts by the passenger. Once the passenger has not suppressed any material fact then how it can be said that the appellant has abetted the passenger in the commission of certain viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
