9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting confiscation of export goods (Neck Tie) covered under 32 Shipping Bills, also ordered re-determination of the assessable value thereof and rejected the drawback claim on the said goods attempted to be exported under the said 32 Shipping Bills. He has also ordered the rejection of the draw-back claim in respect of past shipment of the said product (33 in numbers). He has also imposed penalties under section 114(i) and 114 (ii) as well as under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on various persons involved including the present appellant. The rejection of the drawback claim has been so directed on account of gross over-valuation of the export goods for the purpose of claiming unintended and highly inflated drawback amounts. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jeet Vains proprietor of M/s. Singh Trading Co. (c) Various papers where signature of Surjeet Vains appears. (d) An envelope addressed to Anupam Mondal sent by Jassi. During the search, no other documents or thing were retrieved from the residence of appellant. 3. A show cause notice dated 10.11.2010 was issued to five persons including the appellant as well as Shri Debasis Mukherjee. The impugned show cause notice came to be concluded vide Order-in- Original referred supra. It is the claim of the department that acting on intelligence concerning unscrupulous exports of goods declared as "Neck Tie" under duty drawback scheme with claim of inflated and undue drawback amounts, were filed and resorted to by certain unscrupulous exporters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal or company account), he would also get some money by withdrawing cash from the ATM for which Jassi had provided to him his (Jassi's) ATM Card. This ATM Card was in the name of Asutosh Birla. During the search of the office premises of the CHA, the department recovered certain incriminating documents by way of the following:- i) blank soft copies of invoice & packing list of M/s. Cosmos Impex, for export of silk ties, found in the office computer, print outs of which were taken, which were then authenticated by Shri Mukherjee; ii) several rubber stamps of various firms including M/s. Cosmos Impex, M/s. Singh Trading Co., M/s. S.K.Acharya & M/s. Orient Clearing & Forwarding Agency; iii) print out of soft copy of another invoice of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discussed only to the extent of prefacing the factual matrix of the case. 6. In so far as the appellant, Anupam Mondal is concerned, the only charge against him is abetting Shri Ajay Madan alias Jassi alias Ashutosh Birla, the real exporter of this case, by creating fake identity for him, by helping him open a bank account using the said fake identity, by receiving money from him in his bank account and handing it over to Debasis Mukhejee for the purpose of the subject exports of neckties. The appellant has therefore been subjected to penalty under section 114/ and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. The Noticee at Sl.No.(v) of SCN - the appellant Anupam Mondal, Proprietor of M/s. East India Impex, vide his reply dated 11.04.2011 to SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an undisputed fact that incriminating documents were seized from his residence. Further, though the appellant may hold that receiving money from Jassi and handing over the same to Debasis Mukherjee was not an offence under the purview of Customs Act, 1962, it is a fact that the appellant failed to justiciably explain reasons thereof, without attributing the same to the present offence. Thus for abetting the contraventions under the provisions of the Customs Act, penalties have been imposed upon the appellant the Section 114 and / 114AA by the authorities below. 9. We find from the statement of Anupam Mondal, Proprietor of M/s. East India Impex that he has admitted to his role as an abettor to Ajay Madan alias Jassi alias Ashutosh Birla, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department had also alleged that the appellant tried to thwart and mislead the investigating agency and even tampered with the evidence. 10. Considering the totality of the matter, we feel that the case does not warrant imposition of harsh penalties on the appellant, as would require stronger evidence in the matter. We feel that the penalty imposed on the appellant are disproportionate to his role as made out from whatever evidence the department has been able to muster and the ends of justice would be met by reducing the same from Rupees Three Lakh to Rupees Fifty Thousand only. But for the aforesaid modification, we are not inclined to interfere any further with the impugned order. 11. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
