Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 714 - CESTAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 112 - Mis declaration of goods - Goods declared as Chicpeas - ownership of goods - financier of importer - Held that:- goods were declared in the IGM as 'Chic Peas' and the IGM was in the name of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Enterprises (I). Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, defines who the importer is. As per the said provisions, the importer is who files the Bill of Entry for importation of the goods and who claims the owner of the goods. Admittedly, in this case no Bill of Entry has been filed and nobody claimed to have imported the goods, although the findings of the adjudicating authority state that Shri Ravi Divecha was the master-mind to import the goods. In that case, it cannot be held that Shri Ravi Divecha or Shri Pravin Gupta are the importers of the impugned goods. As nobody has claimed to be owner of the goods therefore, as per the IGM the importer is only M/s. Dhanlaxmi Enterprises (I). If at all penalty is to be imposed that has to be considered by the adjudicating authority during the adjudication proceedings. In this case, a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- have also been confirmed against Shri Mukund Mayani, proprietor of M/s Dhanlaxmi Enterprises (I). Further, it is on record tht Shri Pravin Gupta has financed a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- to Shri Ravi Divecha on persuasion of Shri Jayesh Gosalia, who is not an impugned party to the show-cause notice. To finance an importer does not make the appellants being importer of the goods and in the case of Ashwin Doshi (supra) this Tribunal held that although the appellant has financed for the importation of the consignments but there is no whisper about the ownership and the financer having handled or have made any declaration on the Bill of Entry filed, penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be imposed - decided in favour of assessee.
|