2016 (12) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und to be very low. After investigation, show cause notice dt. 23.6.2011 was issued inter alia proposing rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty of Rs. 5,60,481/- and imposition of penalties on Shri Uttam Chand Sawal Chand Jain, M/s.Devasai International, Shri M.Ritesh, Shri T.R. Bhoopalan and M/s.Santon Shipping Services. Subsequently, the said Shri Uttam Chand Jain approached the Settlement Commission seeking settlement of his case. The case was against Shri Uttam Chand Jain was settled by Hon'ble Settlement Commission vide Final Order No.20/2013-Cus. dt. 16.7.2013. However, the Commission also ruled that adjudicating authority is free to proceed against other co-noticees to the show cause notice in accordance with law....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said appellant had only lent his IE code which enabled the said Shri Uttam Chand Jain to import the goods for a monetary consideration of Rs. 3000/-. In respect of Shri T.R. Bhoopalan, the said person had only filed Bill of Entry and handled the documents related thereto. In respect of Shri M.Ritesh, the said person only acted as middlemen at Chennai for Shri Uttam Chand Jain and solicited for obtaining signature of T.R.Bhoopalan from original IEC holder for importing and clearing the goods, actually belonging to Jain. 4. For these reasons, Ld. Advocate submitted that penalties imposed on these three persons cannot sustain and should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC on behalf of Revenue submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... them in the entire matter and also the findings with regard to the said persons. 8. However, with respect to the penalties under Section 112 (a) and Section 114AA imposed on Shri M.Ritesh, I find that the same requires a revisit. The role of Shri Ritesh, as concluded by the adjudicating authority in para-45 of the OIO, is only as a middleman. While the said paragraph does mention that he has also involved himself in the clearance of the goods, there is no allegation that the said appellant has in any way put his hand or signed any of the Customs documents. This being the case, and especially, considering that the main player in the entire matter has already settled his case with the Settlement Commission. The other penalties on M/s.G.De....