9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation Branch (Port), Custom House, Kolkata on 02.03.2016. Samples were drawn from the detained goods and sent for testing to the National Research Centre on Meat, Hyderabad. As per the Test Report dated 31.03.2016 received from them, it was informed that both the consignments under the above shipping bills were containing beef. As the subject goods viz. beef, were prohibited for exportation and the appellant had declared the same as "Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat", the said goods were seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that the mis-declared goods were liable for confiscation. 2.1. After completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2017 was issued proposing confiscation of the impugned goods namely "beef" which was alleged to have been mis-declared as "Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat". The Show Cause Notice sought to impose penalties on Mr. Ankit Kapoor, Proprietor of the exporting firm, namely, M/s. Global Foods International under Section 114(i) and Section 114A of the Customs Act and on the key persons namely, Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, Mr. Musarraf Hossain (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant no. 1") and Mr. Mizanur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Enterprise did not have any accommodation / godown to store the meat products. In fact, all the products so purchased in the name of M/s. A.M. Enterprise were being stored at Ajmir Multipurpose Cold Storage, which was taken on rent by Mr. Ankit Kapoor. (vii) Mr. Ankit Kapoor took 10,000 sq. ft. area in Ajmir Multipurpose Cold Storage on rent and made renovation and development by incurring more than crores of rupees and used the cold storage for the purpose of storing / packaging of his goods (meat) meant for export. (viii) After taking delivery of the products from various suppliers, requirement of fund for the purpose of making payments towards those suppliers including transportation charge, labour charge and other expenses used to be paid from the account of M/s. A.M. Enterprise. Practically, M/s. A.M. Enterprise is nothing but a shell organization of M/s. Global Foods International; all the staffs of M/s. A.M. Enterprise were engaged by Mr. Ankit Kapoor. (ix) M/s. A.M. Enterprise had no office and got its trade licence showing the rented residential room of the appellant no. 1 as its office / place of business. All necessary papers and/or documents in connection with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm M/s. Global Foods International in Kolkata. He submitted that the appellant no. 1 had started a firm in the name of M/s. A.M. Enterprise and all the procurements of beef for the exports made through Kolkata have been done through this firm and payments were done from the Bank Current Account maintained by the appellant no. 1 in ICICI Bank; It was noticed that transactions worth crores of rupees have been done in the said account. He submits that the appellant no. 1 has contacted the persons of the slaughter houses and arranged for transportation of meat meant for export to Kolkata; he supervised the loading of the consignment when the same were loaded for the purpose of export from Kolkata Port. Thus, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue contends that the appellant no. 1 has played an active role in the export of the restricted item viz. beef and therefore, he submits that the penalty has been rightly imposed on him. 6.1. Regarding the role played by Mr. Mizanur Mondal (appellant no. 2), he submitted that he had rented his godown viz. Ajmir Multipurpose Cold Storage where the illegally procured beef had been stored. Accordingly, it is alleged that he has abetted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm M/s. A.M. Enterprise. The business under the name of M/s. A.M. Enterprise was entirely controlled and managed by Mr. Ankit Kapoor. 9.2. From the facts of the case narrated above, we observe that the appellant no. 1 was mainly engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading of export cargo of M/s. Global Foods International and he got a remuneration of Rs.22,000/- per month. We find that although the business under the name of M/s. A.M. Enterprise was registered in the name of appellant no. 1, the entire activities of the said Firm has been controlled and managed by Mr. Ankit Kapoor of M/s. Global Foods International. From the documents available on record, we observe that Mr. Ankit Kapoor used to make contact and finalize the dealings with all the persons concerned who used to supply cattle meat to the said firm; those meat products purchased for export from NS Dock, Kolkata, were exported in the name of M/s. A.M. Enterprise and not in the name of M/s. Global Foods International. The goods were being shown as sold by M/s. A.M. Enterprise in favour of M/s. Global Foods International and accordingly, online fund transactions were made by M/s. Global Foods International in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. It is submitted that the party used to store their goods i.e., Buffalo Meat (as declared) in the cold storage. He submitted that till he received the Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2017, he was not aware that beef instead of Buffalo meat was being stored in the cold storage. Thus, we observe that he has no specific role in the alleged export of beef. Just because the cold storage was given on rent, it cannot be alleged that he has abetted the offence. We observe that he has no role or knowledge about the modus operandi of his tenant's business conducted within the rented portion of the cold storage. We observe that the agreement itself specified the area, job to be undertaken, formalities to be observed for using the cold storage, etc. We observe that the rent agreement specifically mentioned that the cold storage is meant only for the purpose of storage of the goods, i.e., meat as agreed upon in the agreement. Thus, we hold that appellant no. 2 is in no way concerned with the alleged export of beef and hence we hold that the penalty imposed on him for abetting the offence under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
