9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the country of China. The appellant had contacted the foreign exporters at China and introduced them with the proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. The negotiation of purchase and import of glass materials by M/s. Bharti Glass Company were made by him as per instruction of Shri Banwarilal Ganeriwala, proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. Ld.Counsel further submits that in all the occasions, the appellant used to make correspondences with the foreign exporters on behalf of the importer in India. However, all such correspondences were in accordance with the instruction of the importer, who was doing the business ultimately. The appellant had no interest in the entire business of M/s. Bharti Glass Company in importation of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gn any customs paper. Accordingly, the Lower Appellate Authority had reduced the quantum of the penalties imposed. Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. It is submitted that the appellant had never pleaded any ignorance of law before the Adjudicating Authority. What was pleaded by the appellant were the facts and the ignorance of the intention of the importer. Hence, the question of ignorance of law of the appellant does not and cannot arise in this respect. It is further submitted that under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 it is mandatory for the person upon whom penalty have been imposed to do or omitted to do any act which act or omission rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Naveen Mehta had accepted the fact of duplicate set of invoices and it was he who had arranged the duplicate invoices from the foreign suppliers to facilitate the mis-declaration of value on the part of the importer which made the subject goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, for his acts and/or involvement in obtaining parallel/duplicate invoices used for under-declaration of value and involvement otherwise in transactions over and above the declared invoice value, thereby also abetting the doings and omissions on the part of the importer in rendering the subject goods liable to confiscation and accordingly, rendered himself liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and under Section 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposable since the appellant cannot be brought under the category of person who are liable to penalty. Therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already recorded the fact that the appellant had no direct role in the customs clearance and did not signed any customs paper and had arranged duplicate invoice for lower value for importer without knowing the actual intention of the importer. But the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and since ignorance of law and/or being unaware of the intention of the importer is not a ground of excuse, I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) and direct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
