TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC upholds customs penalty for goods removal using forged documents under sections 112 and 114AA</h1> <h3>Dhananjay Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) New Customs House</h3> Dhananjay Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) New Customs House - 2025 (391) E.L.T. 180 (Del.) Issues involved: Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 based on alleged involvement in attempted removal of imported goods using forged documentation.Summary:1. The appeal challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, engaged by a company for customs clearance work, was accused of attempting to remove goods based on forged gate passes without filing Bills of Entry or paying customs duty. 2. The appellant was alleged to have introduced a representative to a Customs House Agent for clearance of goods using forged documentation. The investigation revealed attempts to remove goods with fake gate passes and Bills of Entry, leading to suspicions of collusion with the company involved. 3. The first attempt to remove goods was made in July 2017, with subsequent efforts to cover up the wrongdoing by producing additional documents. Documents related to 'Assorted Silver Jewellery' were found during a search of the company's premises, supporting the collusion allegations. 4. Despite denying involvement, the appellant requested to cross-examine certain individuals, who did not respond. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the opportunity but proceeded with the case due to non-cooperation. The appellant claimed to be in a different state on the date of the incident, supported by Call Detail Records. 5. The CESTAT upheld the penalty, noting the non-appearance of witnesses for cross-examination did not invalidate their statements. The Commissioner found evidence of the appellant's involvement in the attempted removal of goods, supported by interactions with accomplices and call records. 6. The CESTAT agreed with the Commissioner's conclusions, emphasizing the mutual interest of co-accused in avoiding cooperation. The appellant's admission of involvement and communication with accomplices on the day of the incident were considered incriminating, leading to the penalty under Section 112 and Section 114AA of the Act. 7. The CESTAT's decision was based on factual findings and evidence appreciation, finding no legal grounds for interference. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant for his role in the attempted removal of imported goods using forged documentation.
TaxTMI 