9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in import of goods. Habib-uz-Zaman again approached the appellant in 2016 for helping for import of marbles. Since Habib-uz-Zaman was not having IEC, he asked appellant to find out some person on whose IEC the goods could be imported. Around same time, one IEC holder Mr. Devi Das Dhingra, Proprietor of M/s Ankit Enterprises asked the appellant to help him to surrender his IEC registration. Therefore, the appellant introduced Devi Das to Habib-uz-Zaman and accordingly for a consideration Devi Das agreed to allow Habib-uz-Zaman to import marbles on the IEC of Devi Das. That in the instant case, Habib-uz-Zaman sent bill of lading dated 10.10.2016 showing import of corrugated boxes. On enquiry by the appellant, Habib-uz-Zaman informed that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper import of cigarette nor involved in the clearance of the said consignment. 5. Pursuant to investigation show cause notice was issued on 15.06.2017 proposing to confiscate the cigarette and imposed penalty on various persons including this appellant. This appellant contested the show cause notice on the allegation on him that he was involved in the import of the consignment of cigarette, as he has facilitated by being a channel between Devi Das and Habib-uz-Zaman and Badi-uz-Zaman. Vide order-in-original the consignment of cigarette was absolutely confiscated and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on M/s Ankit Enterprises, the IEC holder. Further, penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was imposed each on Habib-uz-Zaman and Badi-uz-Zaman under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was not an iota of evidence on record either in the form of document or statement that the appellant was at all having any information of the so-called mischief played by Habib-uz-Zaman. It is further urged that the penalty under Section 112(b) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances as penalty under this Section is attracted for reasons which have not been found to exist in the case of this appellant. Section 112 reads as follows:- "(a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the appeal record, I find that the only allegation against this appellant is that he introduced the actual importer Habib-uz-Zaman and Badi-uz-Zaman to the IEC holder, who agreed for the use of his IEC on consideration agreed to be provided by Habib-uz-Zaman. Thereafter, there is no role of this appellant forthcoming. None of the co-noticee has stated anything against this appellant save and except that he has introduced the importer and the IEC holder. Thus, I find that none of the condition as stipulated in Section 112(b) of the Act is attracted for imposing penalty. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal so far this appellant is concerned. 13. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
