TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Heard Shri N. Viswanathan, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue. 3. I have considered the rival contentions, have gone through the written submission filed by the appellant as well as the decisions/orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 4. Brief facts, as could be gathered after hearing both the parties, which are relevant for my consideration, inter alia, are that the appellant was one of the Directors of the company known as M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., a Licensed Customs Broker under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations duly licensed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and later resigne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cement of value and imposition of penalties on the importer, while also proposing imposition of penalty on many noticees including the appellant herein under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In response to the Show Cause Notice issued proposing inter alia to levy penalty under Section 112(b)(i) ibid., the appellant filed a detailed reply; that Order-in-Original No. 75963/2020 dated 31.08.2020 was passed whereby the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the penalty on the appellant as proposed, and that thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal having rejected the same, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6. The crux of the arguments a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving admitted that the purpose of sending the representative was to ascertain the status of the container and to speak to the Customs Officer, there is absolutely no justification to even presume any attempt to illegally remove the container, particularly when the CFS had subsequently reported that the container had not been tampered and was intact; (v) The casual and irresponsible finding recorded in the impugned order as if the other persons have implicated the involvement of the appellant in the alleged attempt to illegally remove the container, even when no such statements existed or allegations were made in the Show Cause Notice and when in his statement the appellant had categorically denied his involvement with the subject i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a hint as to the ploy of impersonating thereby to clear the container from the CFS. 7.3 Further, even though the Mahazar drawn on 18.06.2018 did not reveal the tampering of the container, but the fact remains, as could be seen from paragraph 5 of the Show Cause Notice, that the goods as per the transhipment permit documents consigned to M/s. SSHS Centex Impex Pvt. Ltd., D-1A-69, Ground Floor, D Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi vide Bill-of-Lading No. 576238712 dated 09.05.2018 were 25250 kgs. of PVC Reflective Sheets whereas upon examination, the goods in the container were found to be soft plastic sheets, shoes of different brands (brands: Nike, Adidas, Reebok) and cosmetic items (brands: Lakme, Mac, Huda, Wellastrate). This mismatch / mis-....