Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1004 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of penalty u/s 112 (a) and (q) of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegation is also that documents pertaining to its firm have illegally been used in the impugned import - evidence on record proving involvement in the alleged illegal import or not - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the import export code (IEC) was applied for by M/s. Pico Trading Co. in December, 2010 with the help of Shri Deepak Rishi. All relevant documents were provided by Shri Sanjay Arora the proprietor of M/s. Pico Trading Co. to said Shri Deepak. Admittedly, the said IEC Code was received in the month of January, 2011. The consignment in question entered into Indian Territory in the month of October, 2011 - No explanation is produced by Sanjay Arora about several calls being made between him and Mr. Deepak in the month of October, 2011 that too for the durations as long as of 599 seconds. The only evidence relied upon is the FIR lodged by Shri Sanjay Arora but the said FIR is after the import and after Shri Sanjay Arora had joined the investigation. The possibility of said FIR as an after-thought to manipulate defence cannot be ruled out. Further, no outcome of the investigation in the said FIR have been brought on record, though original adjudicating authority has held Shri Sanjay Arora to be the victim of identity theft whereby his identity has been used to cause the fraudulent imports. But his association with Shri Deepak Rishi is very much established on record. From the testimony of all the noticees herein the transaction which appears in corroboration is that Shri Deepak Rishi was the mastermind for the impugned imports and every other noticee has acted at his instance - Sanjay Arora has not been the victim of identity theft. He rather allowed his papers to be used by Shri Deepak Rishi. Hence, he cannot walk out of being called as abater/ conspirator. Penalty upon him under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 has therefore rightly been imposed - We are in agreement with the original adjudicating authority that after imposition of penalty on proprietor the simultaneous penalty on his firm for the same offence has been correctly dropped. The order under challenge to that extent stands upheld. The modus operandi for operating such imports has also been disclosed by said Deepak Rishi in his statement as was recorded on 30.11.2011. He has specifically named Nawal Kishore Singh to rather be the mastermind of the impugned import and that Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh had clear knowledge about the consignment to contain branded luxury items instead of unbranded glassware. Shri Nawal Kishore Singh has not brought anything on record to falsify said testimony. His association with Deepak Rishi rather stands corroborated from the testimony of Bhupinder Singh even the call records of Shri Deepak Rishi proved association of Nawal Kishore Singh with Deepak Rishi - even Sanjay Arora is not the victim of identity theft. He sent his documents for the impugned imports and was constantly in touch with Shri Deepak Rishi during the period of import. Hence the findings against the second appellant, namely, Shri Nawal Kishore Singh are also hereby upheld. As a result of entire above discussion, we hereby uphold the order under challenge except for the separate penalty on M/s. Pico Trading Co. Consequent thereto, both the appeals stand dismissed. Appeal disposed off.
|