9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,09,319.00 (USD 2,83,980/-). The net weight of the cargo was declared as 10Kg and gross weight as 14.5 Kgs. The name of the party to whom the goods were to be exported was declared in the shipping bill as 'PROJECT PRO, SANAIYA 2, AJMAN UAE'. From the noting on the reverse side of the Shipping Bill, it appeared that the assessing officer of the Customs, KASEZ had raised query and had asked the said unit to submit the copy of bond in Form-H. Shri Shashikant J Parmar, (who had signed the shipping bill as well as replied to the query and signed as "FOR MAZDA GLOBAL") appeared to have supplied the copy of the bond with the request to assess the shipping bill. 1.1 The factory premises of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL were searched on 31.3.07 by the Officers of SIIB section of Customs House, Kandla. One person who introduced himself as Shri Shashikant J Parmar, production in-charge and authorized signatory of the firm was present at the material time. During the search operations Shri Shashikant J Parmar identified the goods (for which the subject shipping bill was filed) which were in the factory. The said goods namely 20 pieces of cap shaped items apparently look like made of some kind of plast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough Smt. Bharti J. Gandhi, Proprietor), A-82, Hariom Apartments, Near Law Garden, Panchvati Road, Ahmedabad under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. 1962 read with the Instruction No.6/2006 dated 3-8-2006 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section). (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only) on Shri Amish J. Gandhi, Manager of M/s Mazda Global, R.P.302, Rajpari, Rajvansh Apartment, Near Judges Bunglow Police Station, Ahmedabad under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Instruction No.6/2006 dated 3-8-2006 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section). (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) on Shri. Shashikant J Parmar, Production-in-charge of M/s. Mazda Global, 214/2566,. Pratiksha Apartment, Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Instruction No.6/2006 dated 3-8-2006 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section). (vi) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,25,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only) on Smt. Bharti J. Gandhi, Proprietor of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GLOBAL as an authorized signatory before any government department except the impugned Shipping Bill; that he was never appointed as Production Manager or Production In Charge as he neither understands the duties and functions of Production Manager or Production In Charge nor he has eligible qualifications to be so appointed; that on 30.03.2007 the appellant received a call from Shri Amish J Gandhi, Manager of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL informing him that they have to file the Shipping Bill today and he further informed the appellant that since both the Authorised Signatory namely Proprietor Smt. Bharti J Gandhi & Manager Shri Amish Gandhi are at Ahmedabad and the shipping bill has to be filed urgently at KASEZ Gandhidham, therefore, the proprietor of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL Smt. Bharti J Gandhi is authorising the appellant to sign on behalf of M/s.MAZDA GLOBAL for the export under invoice no.001/die/grp dated 30.3.2007, the said letter authorising the appellant on behalf of the M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL to sign on behalf of the company for the export under the invoice no.001/die/grp dated 30.3.2007, duly signed by proprietor Smt. Bharti J Gandhi was received by him on Fax No.95-2836-253731 at 8.08 p.m. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring the value of the goods as Rs. 1,25,09,319/- or after obtaining the information required in the Shipping Bill from Manager Shri Amish Gandhi on phone as those details were not at all known to the appellant. 2.2 He submits that as regard the allegation that the appellant knew the value of export goods was not more than Rs. 10,000/- and he still signed the Shipping Bill wherein the value declared was Rs. 1,25,09,319/-. He submits that the appellant has clearly stated in his statement dated 31.3.2007 that he had sought guidance regarding the value of the goods through Manager Shri Amish Gandhi and on his advise the value was indicated in the Shipping Bill as Rs. 1,25,09,319/- more so as the same value was indicated in the export invoice duly signed by the proprietor of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL Smt. Bharti Gandhi on 30.03.2007 that he had no option to declare any other value as his Manager Shri Amish Gandhi has advised him to declare the said value as Rs. 1,25,09,319/- and same value was declared by the proprietor in the duly signed invoice already received by him on email. 2.3 Similarly, as regard the copy of Form-H (Bond) the details were obtained by the appellant through Manager Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRAVELS LTD.- 2017 (358) ELT 669 * AKANSHA ENTERPRISES- 2006 (203) ELT 125 * VETRI IMPEX- 2004 (172) ELT 347 * MORIKS SHIPPING AND TRADING PVT LTD.- 2008 (227) ELT 577 * SHRI RAM & ANOTHER v/S. STATE OF UP- AIR 1975 SC 175 * M/S. A N BHATT- 1991 (55) ELT 580 * O.P. AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA- 2005 (185) ELT 387 (Tri-Del.) * CARPENTER CLASSIC EXIM PVT. LTD. V/s. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE- 2006 (200) ELT 593 (Tri.-Bang.) affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 2009 (235) ELT 201 (SC) * ASSOCIATED PLASTICS AND RAYONS Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX., & CUSTOMS, VAPI- 2007 (210) ELT 524 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * CCE Vs. AMINCHANDRA KANT BHALLABHAI- 2010 (258) ELT 36 (Guj.) * M/S. GLOBAL CAMBAY MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Final Order No.A/11662-11665/2018 dated 07.08.2018. 2.6 He further submits that there is substantial delay in adjudication of Show Cause Notice. He submits that though under the Customs Act, 1962 no time limit for adjudication of a case has been prescribed but that does not mean that unlimited time period is available for adjudicating the case. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of M/S. BHATINDA DISTRICT CO.OP. MILK P. UN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. MAZDA GLOBAL, the value was taken from the invoice which was prepared and signed by the Proprietor of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL Smt. Bharti J Gandhi which was sent to the appellant by Shri Amish Gandhi. The appellant being an employee of the M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL has no reason to dispute the valuation as the original valuation was finalized by his employer M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL through the proprietor Smt. Bharti Gandhi. The appellant being a less graduated person cannot be made to know the technicalities of the product as well as the value of the goods as regard the decision about the nature of the goods and value thereof. Whereas, the core business decision which is to be taken by the promoter of the company. In the present case, undisputedly the value was decided and for which an invoice was issued by M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL under signature of Smt. Bharti Gandhi proprietor of the firm. The appellant has only copied the same details in the shipping bill therefore, as regard charge of overvaluation, the appellant cannot be made responsible as the entire fraud was committed by the employer of the appellant M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL through its proprietor Smt. Bharti Gandhi and her son Shri Amish Gandhi. Merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom him to know about value of the goods. Since he has received the invoice from his employer, he had no option except to mention the same value in the Shipping Bill therefore, merely because during investigation he stated that his awareness of the value of the goods i.e. Rs. 10,000/- is baseless, even the value of Rs. 10,000 was not justified. Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant has acted only on the instruction of the employer and more so on the basis of the signed documents i.e. invoice given by his employer.
4.2 In view of the above undisputed fact, the exorbitant penalty of Rs. 75 Lacs is not justified. Since our finding is based on the particular facts of this case though, we have gone through the judgments cited by both the sides, we are not discussing the same. Since the appellant is not involved in the main offence of over valuation of the goods but admittedly signed the Shipping Bill, he is liable for some token penalty. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 75 Lacs to Rs. 25,000/-.
05. The impugned order stands modified to the above extent. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the open court on 11.01.2022) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
