TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "3. Acting on a specific information, officers of the DRI, Mumbai identified and detained thee consignments on 31.03.2003 arrived under three different Airway Bills at Air India Light Warehouse, ACC, Sahar showing consignee as M/s Peak Impex, M/s A.K. Traders and M/s Mufema Enterprises with the description of goods declared as Artificial Flowers and Key Chain suspected to contain Computer Parts, Button Cell and Electronic Goods. On further intelligence, two more consignments were intercepted by DRI at ACC on 03.04.2003 and 01.04.2003. 4. The aforesaid consignments were examined without waiting for Bills of Entry to be filed, as available intelligence indicated that the said consignments may be cleared by manipulation of Marks and Numbers on the packages or by substitution of packages. On examination of the said consignments, Intel Pentium Microprocessor and IC s (Rs.30,39,950/- CIF), Button Cell of Maxell Sony (Rs.14,81,610/-), Artificial Flowers and Game Circuit Board (Rs.5,88,720/- CIF), LCD Projectors, Data Projectors, Cameras (Rs.15,66,452/- CIF) and VCD Players, Iron Boxes (Rs.3,70,000/- CIF) were found and the said goods were seized under Panchanama dated 31.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, he met Mr. Bharat Bhai (brother of Dhirubhai) and the said Bharat Bhai had settled the matter with Ganpath Ingle to whom he had taken loan of Rs. 42,100/- and got back his CHA licence in the year 1998; that Shri Bharat Bhai approached him for using his CHA licence on Rs. 5,000/- per month; he agreed to the proposal; that in the year January 2003, CIU Customs, ACC, Mumbai had booked a case regarding under valuation against M/s Rishabh Enterprises run by Dhirubhai, brother of Bharat Bhai; that case was settled after paying a differential customs duty; that he got a wind and told Dhirubhai and Bharatbhai to stop using his CHA licence all together and surrender their Customs pass. Thereafter he revoked the CHA licence on the premise that the charges leveled have been proved. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that with regard to Article of Charges under Regulation 12 of CHALR 2004, no licence shall be sold or otherwise transferred. At the time of investigation of DRI, Shri Dhirubhai Shah made a statement that he is using the licence of the appellant on payment of Rs. 5,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice. The order of imposing penalty also has been stayed by this Tribunal observing that Shri Dhirubhai Shah has not mis-declared the goods as they have not filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods. As this Tribunal has already observed that the employee of the appellant i.e. Shri Dhirubhai Shah has not filed any Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods, the question of mis-declaration does not arise. 4.5 In these circumstances, the learned Advocate prays that the impugned order should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order. 6. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. With regard to the Charges leveled under Regulation 12, we find that the appellant has produced the salary certificate, Books of Accounts and the Income Tax Returns showing that Shri Dhirubhai Shah was an employee of the appellant and that facts have not been controverted by the Revenue with any supporting evidence. The learned Commissioner relied on only the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the DRI. The said statement was also retracted by the appellant at the earliest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 07.05.2003 and 24.06.2003 of Shri Dhirubhai Shah. Only the statement dated 7.5.2003 has been retracted and that also on 12.5.2003. There is no evidence that statement dated 24.6.2003 was ever retracted. Commissioner has relied upon the statement of Shri Ved Kumar Kambil dated 09.05.2003 and that of Shri Ramesh Gada dt. 2.4.2003 and 3.4.2003. There are no evidence that the said statements were retracted. However, keeping in view of nature of the charge and the fact that the appellant has produced the income tax return and other documents as against the oral statement by the Revenue, which are not supported by further investigations and regarding financial flow or statements from various clients benefit of doubt has to go to the appellant and thus in my view also the Charge under Regulation 12 of the CHALR, 2004 stands not proved. 11. The 2nd Charge against the appellant is for violation of Regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004. The appellant has not given any details about the seizure of the documentsfrom his office/possession by DRI. It is also not clear when the documents were taken away by the Directorate of Reve....