2022 (12) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat Show Cause Notices were issued in respect of fraudulent import of vehicles declared as brand new vehicles of foreign origin through Kolkata Port on different dates and cleared against Bills of Entry. The importers paid the duty and claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002. It was found that the importers availed the exemption wrongly with the help of various persons. The Adjudicating authority passed various orders and imposed penalty on different persons. 4.  The Appellant herein filed the Appeals against imposition of penalties as under :- Appeal No. Amount of Penalty C/75383/2018 Rs.3,00,000/- u/s 112(a)  C/75384/2018 Rs.4,00,000/- u/s 112(a), (b) & 114AA  C/75385/2018 Rs.1,00,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss - C/O M/s. Pride City General Trading LLC, P.O. Box 32371, Dubai, (UAE) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 7.  The Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has observed as under:- "14. I have carefully considered the Orders-in-Original, Grounds of Appeal, Oral as well as written submissions of Appellant. The findings of Order-in-Original are that the appellant Shri Charanjit Singh actively took part in the operations regarding clearance of fraudulently imported high-end cars into India through Kolkata Port for himself and in the name of various importers as an accomplice of Shri Rajesh Jethani, stated to be based in Dubai, UAE from where he have been controlling the business of sale and purchase of used cars. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not aware about the contents of documents. 9.2  The allegation of abetment charged upon on the Appellant are totally false and baseless in nature.  10.  The Appellant submits that Section 114AA is not applicable in charging the Appellant for penalty when documents on the basis of which Appellant is charged are not in the manner laid down under Section 138C. The same should be authenticated in the manner which is prescribed under Section 138C. As Section 138C is not proved then the penalty levied under Section 114AA will not be attracted. 11.  I am not impressed by the submissions of the Ld.Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant.  The main contention of the Ld.Counsel is that DRI Officer, without any inve....