TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 through CHA M/s. Shivoy Enterprises, have 7495 pieces of Multi Utility Bags. But in the bags, it was found that there were 433 boxes /plastic sacks which were stuffed in the said container with items of cosmetics, ready made garments and mobile phones housing etc. It was found that intentionally, the goods were declared as multi utility bags but other items were imported /smuggled which attract customs duty on import. Statement of concerned persons were recorded. Customs duty was levied on the importer M/s. Naresh Hand Works and various penalties were levied under Section 112(a) as well as under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on appellants and other concerned persons. Being aggrieved, only following appellants have approached the Tribunal. 1 Shri Kshitiz Sharma Rs.10 lakh under section 112(a) Rs.5 lakh under section 114 AA 2 Shri Manish Khanna Rs.10 lakh under section 112(a) Rs.5 lakh under section 114 AA 3 Shri Nikhi Dinghra Rs.5 lakh under section 112(a) Rs.2.5 lakh under section 114 AA 4 Shri Rajinder Dhingra Rs.5 lakh under section 112(a) Rs.2.5 lakh under section 114 AA 5 Shri Neeraj Choudhary Rs.5 lakh un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipated the transaction. Appeal No. 50826 & 50825 /2017 (Shri Rajender Dhingra and Shri Nikhil Dhingra) 6. Both the appellants are relatives. Shri Rajinder Dhingra was into the job of clearing of cargo work and was holding G card and had also worked as CHA for sometime. In his statement dated 26.5.2011, he stated that Shri Kshitiz Sharma and Shri Manish Khanna gave him papers regarding container in question for customs clearance, but since he had left this job, he gave all these papers to his nephew Shri Nikhil Dhingra, who had met Shri Kshitiz Sharma and Shri Manish Khanna in the club run by them in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. In view of the above, it was observed in the impugned order that Shri Rajinder Dhingra and Shri Nikhil Dhingra were involved in smuggled / imported of the goods. 7. Shri Nikhil Dhingra, who is nephew of Shri Rajinder Dhingra, was working as field executive with M/s. Pankaj Babu Saini. His job involved taking of delivery orders from the Shipping Lines and also miscellaneous work allotted to him. In his statement dated 25.5.2011, he stated that in order to clear the goods in respect of the impugned Bill of Entry pertaining to M/s. Naresh Hand Work, he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten submissions, submits that his client has declined to own the goods as he is not the owner. It is the allegation that Shri Kshitiz Sharma and Shri Manish Khanna have given the papers to Dhingra as stated earlier. Shri Naresh Kumar, Proprietor in his statement dated 28.4.11 and 6.1.12 stated that the import was made on behest of Shri Manish Khanna who has used his IEC number. He submits that regarding the statement of Shri Naresh Kumar, Proprietor, during cross examination in the presence of Shri Rahul Khanna younger brother of Minish Khanna, it was confirmed that Shri Manish Khanna was not present. Regarding the allegation that Manish Khanna was intoxicated by Rahul Khanna, he submits that later, this statement was denied. He further stated that his client is innocent. He has not participated in fraud to the exchequer. 12. Shri D S Nagi, learned Advocate further submits that his client was not involved in said smuggling of goods. He had not imported the goods or paid for it. There is absolutely no documentary evidence against him. The appellant was penalized solely on the statement of three co-accused. Except the statements, there is no evidence to corroborate the statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, documents etc. from Shri Nikhil Dhingra and had not got in touch with any of the persons in the chain prior to that. Therefore, his knowledge even by preponderance of probability could not have been better than that of Shri Nikhil Dhingra, who is concerned person. He further submits that Shri Nikhil Dhingra was having the knowledge. He also submits that in the smuggling of goods, there were 9 to 10 persons. But in the instant case, such connection has not been proved by the Department. Lastly, he also relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases: (i) Anil Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2010 (257) ELT 523 (Guj)]; (ii) CCE Indore Vs. Engineers Combine [2009 (15) STR 473 (Tri-Del)]; (iii) Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar [2009 (13) STR 465 (SC)]; and (iv) Commr of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs Vivencio Bartiloni Degollacion [2010 (258) ELT 49 (Bom)] 17. On the other hand, learned DR has relied upon the impugned order by mentioning that he was the operating Manager in M/s. Weiss Rohlig India where he was engaged in freight forwarding business. In his statement Shri Sandeep Rikhi stated that he has received the copy of invoice along with oth....