TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the officers of DRI conducted searches at several places. On 06.02.2009, the officers searched factory premises of M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Ajit Exports, Noida, Office-cum-business premises of M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ajit Exports located at Karol Bagh, New Delhi, residential premises of Shri Ajit Singh, Partner of M/s Ajit Exports situated at Pitampura, New Delhi, Business premises of M/s Omkar Jewellers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and Business premises of M/s Orbit Gold, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai. On 10.02.2009 officers searched residential premises of Shri Komal Jain, Director of M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and his brother Shri Kirti Jain, Partner of M/s Ajit Exports, New Delhi. During the search at common factory premises of M/s Ajit Exports and M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. officers found 15 packets lying in the office room being used by directors of both the units. On inspection of said 15 packets, it was found that 13 packets were pertaining to export consignment and two packets were pertaining to import consignment. Out of 13 packets made for export, 4 packets were pertaining to Shipping Bill No.SB/NSEZ/020001430 dated 04.02.2009 which were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity that appellant had never forwarded any authority letter to M/s Ajit Exports and that the appellant had sent a fax to M/s Ajit Exports forwarding a draft of authority letter. The appellant also submitted that appellant had never given duly signed authority letter authorising M/s Ajit Exports to sign export documents on behalf of the appellant in respect of export to be made on account of the appellant. The finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority for the appellant being held liable for penal action as recorded at sub paragraph ee on page no.349 of the impugned Order-in-Original, is reproduced bellow:- "ee. M/s Goldstone Export Ltd., New Delhi has authorized Shri Ajit Singh to sign the documents on behalf of M/s GoldStone Exports Ltd, have also conspire with Shri Ajit Singh in the fraudulent export. The denial by officers/directors of M/s Goldstone Export abount placing any orders for exports through M/s Ajit Exports appears to be a clear afterthought devised cleverly to escape liability. The fact that in their MOU/s Goldstone Export Ltd, had indicated that they had confirmed export orders and that a written authorization was given by them on the strength of which actual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) During the course of investigations, statements of the officials of the appellant were also recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 wherein the officials of the appellant specifically stated that the appellant had never given any authorization in favour of Shri Ajit Singh of M/s Ajit Exports to sign the export documents on behalf of the appellant and this fact has not been contravened by referring to any part of the statement of either Shri Ajit Singh or any other person for arriving at the decision by Original Adjudicating Authority. e) The appellant had not received any consideration in lieu of any such transaction which establishes that appellant had not authorised M/s Ajit Exports to export goods on their behalf. f) Memorandum of understanding has nowhere stated that the appellant had agreed to authorised M/s Ajit Exports to involve into any illegal activities on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any act of omission or commission by Shri Ajit Singh or M/s Ajit Exports. g) The two shipping bill invoices were issued in the name of M/s Samrah Gold Factory, Sharjah. During the course of investigations statement dated 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of record, I note that appellants were imposed with penalties under Section 112, 114 & 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. For the sake of ready reference the said provisions of the Act are reproduced bellow:- "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; [(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so determined;] [(iii) in the case of any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater.] "SECTION 117. Penalties for contravention, etc., not expressly mentioned. - Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act with which it was his duty to comply, where no express penalty is elsewhere provided for such contravention or failure, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [one lakh rupees]. The above reproduced provisions of the Customs Act clearly indicated that penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is provided for improper importation of the goods. The finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority in sub para no.ee on page no.349 of Order-in-Original is reproduced in the forgoing paragraphs. T....