2016 (11) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or importing of different glass materials from the country of China. The appellant had contacted the foreign exporters at China and introduced them with the proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. The negotiation of purchase and import of glass materials by M/s. Bharti Glass Company were made by him as per instruction of Shri Banwarilal Ganeriwala, proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. Ld.Counsel further submits that in all the occasions, the appellant used to make correspondences with the foreign exporters on behalf of the importer in India. However, all such correspondences were in accordance with the instruction of the importer, who was doing the business ultimately. The appellant had no interest in the entire business of M/s. Bharti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... direct role in customs clearance and did not sign any customs paper. Accordingly, the Lower Appellate Authority had reduced the quantum of the penalties imposed. Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. It is submitted that the appellant had never pleaded any ignorance of law before the Adjudicating Authority. What was pleaded by the appellant were the facts and the ignorance of the intention of the importer. Hence, the question of ignorance of law of the appellant does not and cannot arise in this respect. It is further submitted that under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 it is mandatory for the person upon whom penalty have been imposed to do or omitted to do any act which act or omission rendere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....liable to be set aside. 5. Ld. AR submits that Sri Naveen Mehta had accepted the fact of duplicate set of invoices and it was he who had arranged the duplicate invoices from the foreign suppliers to facilitate the mis-declaration of value on the part of the importer which made the subject goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, for his acts and/or involvement in obtaining parallel/duplicate invoices used for under-declaration of value and involvement otherwise in transactions over and above the declared invoice value, thereby also abetting the doings and omissions on the part of the importer in rendering the subject goods liable to confiscation and accordingly, rendered himself liable for p....