TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003 of the Commissioner Customs (Adjudication), New Custom House, Mumbai. By the impugned order Commissioner held as follows:- "2. The Adjudicating Authority was informed on 27.05.2002 by the legal representative of Shri Shailesh Visaria M D of M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd and of M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd, that they were filing settlement applications in the Settlement Commission. 3. Vide Application No SC/WZ/CUS/22/23Big Vision/2002 filed by Shri Shailesh Visaria and M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd., Settlement Commission has passed Final Order No 15/2003-Cus dated 08.04.2003, wherein liability is admitted for Rs. 58,51,872/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) and the same has been settled. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, the Vice President of M/s Signtech USA. At the time of personal hearing on 23.09.2003, it was re-iterated by Shri Nair orally as well as in written submission that he had not contributed in any way in the evasion of duty and he had gained nothing out of it and also the Settlement Commission has not made any adverse comments against him. He further requested for a lenient view in the matter as others in this case had been granted immunity from penalty. 5. Taking all the above facts and observations into consideration, I hereby drop penal action against Shri Santosh Nair." 2.1 This order was reviewed by the Board under erstwhile Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and appeal was directed to be filed to tribunal on follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m liable to penalty. 2.2 With the above ground Commissioner was directed to file the appeal to tribunal, to determine the following- (a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Mumbai is legal and proper. (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the adjudicating authority should have dropped the charges against Shri Santosh Nair, the Indian agent of the foreign supplier. (c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the adjudicating authority ought to have proceeded against Shri Santosh Nair u/s 112(a) and/ or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S$ 46,000 plus air freight of US$ 6320 totalling to US$ 55320/- for the machine for which the declare list price was US$ 305,000/-. In his statement recorded under Section 108, while admitting that he had issued the said Proforma invoice, he clearly stated that the Proforma invoice was issued as per the directions of Shri Harry Gandy, Vice President (Sales) of the supplier M/s Signtech USA for whom he was working as Indian sales agent. The fact that Shri Santosh Nair has issued the Proforma invoice as directed by Vice President (Sales) of the supplier, has not been controverted by the revenue in the appeal filed. Also it is fact on record that the import documents i.e. Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of Commercial Invoice 328 32686 dat....