Customs Act penalty overturned due to lack of evidence. Appellant granted relief.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence of the appellant's involvement in the mis-declaration and undervaluation of import consignments. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Alleged Abetment in Mis-declaration and Under-valuation of Imported Goods.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

Summary:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant, a Superintendent of GST, appealed against the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The intelligence gathered by the Kolkata Zonal Unit of DRI revealed that certain operators were importing consignments from Hong Kong and China with gross mis-declaration and undervaluation using IEC registered in the name of other persons and shell companies. The investigation found that M/s A.S.S. Tradcom imported six consignments, out of which two were cleared, and four were seized due to mis-declaration and undervaluation. The appellant allegedly visited the DRI Office to facilitate the clearance of these consignments.

2. Alleged Abetment in Mis-declaration and Under-valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellant was accused of abetting the import of mis-declared and undervalued goods. However, the appellant contended that he mistakenly went to the DRI Office to meet someone for a personal reason and not to facilitate the clearance of the consignments. The appellant argued that no evidence was presented to prove his connection with the importer or his involvement in the abetment. The Tribunal noted that the statement of Shri Sameer Sharma, who accompanied the appellant, was not recorded, and there was no evidence to show the appellant's intentional involvement in the mis-declaration and undervaluation of the consignments.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant claimed that he was not provided with the relied-upon documents and was not given a reasonable opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the investigation did not prove the appellant's involvement in the abetment of mis-declaration and undervaluation. The Tribunal referenced previous cases, including Smt. Sushma Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Shri Ram & Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, to establish that mere presence or casual involvement does not constitute abetment without intentional aid or conspiracy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide cogent evidence of the appellant's involvement in the mis-declaration and undervaluation of the import consignments. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed not imposable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---