TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc. fraudulent export of hand-woven carpets by various companies as mentioned in the Table in Show Cause Notice No.8722 dated 14.08.2013, Mr.Sajjan Kumar was found to be the kin-pin and the mastermind against the said exports with an intent to have the duty draw-back wrongly and fraudulently. Vide the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the appellant has been proposed to be burdened with the penalty under Section 114 (iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegations of aiding and abetting said Mr. Sajjan Kumar so as to make those fraudulent exports of hand woven carpets and to wrongly avail the corresponding duty draw back. The said proposal of imposition of penalty has been confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original No.44/2016 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. While rebutting these submissions ld. DR has acknowledged the said final order No.51657/2021 in Appeal No.C/52193/2019. However, at the same time ld. DR has made emphasis upon the correctness of the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the order under challenge. Paras 5.5 and 5.6 of the orders have been relied upon. Ld. DR has thus prayed for upholding the said order. Appeal in hand is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the record as well as the aforesaid final order with respect to Co-Inspector Shri Subhash Chand, I observe and hold as follows: 8. The present appellant alongwith Shri Subhash Chand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observe that there is the admission on part of said Shri Sajjan Kumar about being involved in the export of hand-woven carpets with an intent to make unreasonable duty draw-back benefit. Irrespective the said statement has been retracted, but there is no iota of utterance in any of the statements of Shri Sajjan Kumar about the present appellant or the Co-Inspector Shri Subhash Chand to ever have facilitated him prior he exported those carpets. In absence thereof, the only lacuna on part of the present appellant is that they conducted inquiry about fair market rate of the hand-woven carpets from such firms which were later found to not at all to be involved in export of carpets and hence were not competent to provide any information to these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and casual manner but has wrongly been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) to be an admission for committing an act of abetting the fraudulent export of hand-woven carpets i.e. the goods, which were liable for confiscation. It cannot be the evidence of knowledge and intention of the appellant to facilitate the export of said prohibited goods. I draw my support from the decision in the case of Boria Ram vs. Commissioner, Customs reported in 2017 (354) ELT 661 (Tri.-Del.) also following the findings in the Final Order No.51657/2021 in Appeal No. C/52193/2019. I hold that the Adjudicating authorities have wrongly held the act and conduct of the appellant as an act of abetment. In para 5.5 as impressed upon by ld. DR also Commissioner has spe....