9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign brand cigarettes and other high valued goods such as branded LED TVs, cosmetics etc. Pursuant to further investigation into live consignments and previous imports of 18 consignments, it appeared to the department that one Shri P. Mahivannan was the main person behind the said import using the IEC of Sri Sai Enterprises owned by Shri Dilli Babu, in collusion with one Shri Akbar of Malaysia. Accordingly, a show cause notice dt. 22.01.2016 was issued, inter alia proposing rejection of the value declared/assessed in respect of the goods imported, demand of differential duty of customs of Rs. 7,14,08,175/- and confiscation of the seized goods. Penalties were also proposed on the importers and other concerned persons including the Custom Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s requirement of knowledge and intention and actual involvement in the use of such incorrect materials to attract penal provisions under Section 114AA. 2.3 Ld. Advocate relies on the ratio of the following case laws : (1) CC (Exports), Chennai Vs I. Sahaya Edin Prabhu 2015 (320) ELT 264 (Mad.) (2) Marshall Machado Vs CC (Export) Mumbai 2015 (330 ELT 334 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R vigorously opposes the appeal and submits that the adjudicating authority has clearly concluded inter alia in para-30 of the order that appellant by their acts of commissions and omissions had actively aided and abetted P. Mathiivanan, DilliBabu in arranging the clearances of the impugned 20 consignments by submitting fabricated invoices of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination and clearance of the consignment. 5.3 Thus even from the statements which are relied in the notice, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the proprietor of Premax Logistics has disowned his role in the entire smuggling exercise and his protestations thereof are more or less corroborated in the statement of P. Suresh also relied in the notice. 5.4 Nonetheless, nowhere in the notice or even in the impugned order has there been any attempt made to demolish the depositions of said Shri Nagasundaram or Shri Suresh. Even more interestingly, in the entire impugned order spanning 16 pages in 31 paragraphs, there is just one (para-30), which even refers to the role of the appellant. Even this para which has been relied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrication of false material, nonetheless the very fact that he was connected with the main player involved will definitely indicate some level of knowledge of the modus operandi, even though it may be to a smaller extent. In the event, penalty under section 112 (a) is therefore imposable in this case. However I am of the considered opinion that the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed is unduly high and disproportionate vis-a-vis the role of the CHA as depicted in the notice and in the impugned order. I am of the opinion that the interests of justice in this case would be adequately served by reduction of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 to Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakhs only). Appeal is therefore allowed in the above ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
