Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1168 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - mis-declaration of imported goods - attempt to clear the imported goods neither under the Customs Act nor under the specific provision invoked having made an offence - violation of IPR - Confiscation - enhancement of value - HELD THAT:- It was the appellant claiming himself to be the importer who entered into the picture by introducing Mr. Haarif and also introducing the name of Mr. Devender Yadav, which facts were not at all disputed by the appellant anywhere, either in his reply or his explanations and hence, he is “any person” insofar as the provisions of Section 112 ibid. are concerned. When the appellant is in no way concerned with the goods in question, the very act on his part to get the same removed itself proves the mala fide intention on his part and therefore, the same is held to be sufficient to justify penalizing under Section 112(b)(i) ibid. This itself will sufficiently take care of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, by which the intention of the appellant stands clearly exposed inasmuch as he not only assumed the role of importer, but also was responsible for impersonation as an Import Staff. The appellant has repeatedly and merely claimed that there was nothing on record to evidence his role, other than the statement of Mr. Haarif (alias Saravana Balan), who is also a co-noticee, but he has never denied that Mr. Haarif was sent by himself. When this is not rebutted directly or indirectly, it is opined that this is a sufficient reason to suspect the motive and involvement of this appellant in attempting to clear the consignment knowing fully well that he is neither the owner nor the importer and that the goods in question did not belong to him. There is no dispute as to the fact that by virtue of there being an attempt to smuggle items contrary to the prevailing rules and regulations, the goods have become liable for confiscation and hence, have been confiscated within the meaning of Section 111(d) ibid., for the violations as indicated by the Adjudicating Authority [paragraphs 41 (d), (e), (f) and (g)] - appeal dismissed.
|