Freight forwarder's penalty confirmed for facilitating fraudulent export by mis-declaration.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant, a freight forwarder, under Section 114 of the Customs Act for facilitating the fraudulent export of non-basmati rice by mis-declaration. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs, acknowledging the appellant's involvement in the illegal activities. The appellant's retracted statements were deemed insignificant as his admissions on different occasions, supported by co-accused statements and intercepted consignments, established his complicity in the scheme. The appeal was partially allowed with a reduced penalty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
2. Mis-declaration and fraudulent export of non-basmati rice.
3. Use of forged documents and seals.
4. Role and involvement of various individuals and entities in the fraudulent activities.
5. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner (SIIB) to issue the show cause notice.
6. Evidentiary value of retracted statements.
7. Corroboration of statements by co-accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty on the Appellant:
The central issue in this appeal is whether the penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed on the appellant, a freight forwarder, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, was justified. The appellant was found to have facilitated the export of non-basmati rice by mis-declaring it as sanitary ware.

2. Mis-declaration and Fraudulent Export of Non-Basmati Rice:
The appellant facilitated the export of non-basmati rice, which was prohibited under DGFT Notification No. 39(RE-2007)/2004-2009, by using the IEC codes of other companies and declaring the goods as sanitary ware and gas regulators. The containers were seized and found to contain non-basmati rice instead of the declared goods.

3. Use of Forged Documents and Seals:
The investigation revealed that the appellant and his associates used forged rubber stamps of Central Excise and fake export documents to facilitate the fraudulent export. The appellant admitted to preparing fictitious export documents and using forged stamps and signatures of Central Excise officials.

4. Role and Involvement of Various Individuals and Entities:
The statements of various individuals, including Sh. Rakesh Dhamir, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, and Sh. Sinder Pal, indicated their involvement in the fraudulent export activities. The appellant admitted to receiving payments for facilitating the export and was aware of the mis-declaration. The CHA firms, M/s Neptune Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., and Sh. Rajinder P. Kapoor, were also implicated for their roles in the clearance process.

5. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner (SIIB):
The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner (SIIB) to issue the show cause notice. However, it was held that the issue of jurisdiction was not involved as it was not a case of demand of duty under Section 28(4) but rather a case of violating the provisions of the Customs Act by bringing prohibited goods into the customs area for export through mis-declaration.

6. Evidentiary Value of Retracted Statements:
The appellant retracted his statements before the Court of Duty Magistrate, arguing that a retracted statement had no evidentiary value. However, the Tribunal found that the retraction was not of much consequence as the appellant had admitted his involvement in various statements recorded on different dates, which were corroborated by the statements of co-accused and the live consignment intercepted by Customs Officers.

7. Corroboration of Statements by Co-Accused:
The Tribunal noted that the statements of the appellant were supported by the statements of co-accused and were corroborated with the live consignment intercepted and the forgery noticed by the Customs Officers. The appellant's detailed admission of the modus operandi and the remuneration received from Sh. Sinder Pal and others led to the conclusion that he had knowingly connived in the export of prohibited goods for money.

Judgment:
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant but reduced it from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs, considering the facts and circumstances. The appeal was allowed in part.

---