TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntroducing himself as Nitin Chadda, as brother of Roshan Singh. Accordingly, appellant met Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh introducing himself as Nitin Chadda brother of Roshan Singh for clearance work of goods to be imported by Roshan Singh and Company. Accordingly, he communicated to Mr. Hemant Gandhi that Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh agreed to do the clearance work. At the behest of Mr. Hemant Gandhi appellant got the signature of Mr. Roshan Singh on import documents and Mr. Hemant Gandhi used to forward the documents to the CHA- M/s Promod Logistic Services. Thereafter, two bills of entry were filed no. 8200884 &8200883 both dated 12.10.2012, declaring the goods as 'E-glass off Spec Chopped Strand Mat (B grade)' through the CHA. 3. On specific information, the DRI Headquarters, New Delhi, intercepted the containers and upon inspection, goods were found to be fire crackers. In the front, chopped strand mat was placed and behind the mat, fire crackers had been concealed. Thus, the importers had attempted to import prohibited goods-fire crackers, by resorting to mis-declaration, amounting to smuggling. Punchnama was drawn on 15.10.2012 & 17.10.2012. On demand the CHA could not produce any l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evident from the Bank A/c statement of M/s Roshan Singh and Co. Maintained with ICICI bank, Shahbad, which does not contain any such debit entry from the said A/c, clearly indicating the total involvement of the syndicate in the fraudulent imports. 6. S/Sh. Deepak Rishi and Hemant Gandhi, joined the investigations at a later stage, only on the directions of the Hon'ble Court and again did not cooperate with the investigation by deliberately avoiding their appearance before the investigating officers on the pretext of one excuse or other. Similarly Sh. Roshan Singh joined the investigation only after five summons were issued to him. Sh. Narinder Kumar in his statement dated 06.04.2013 nhas stated that regarding business of firecrackers/fireworks he could state only after discussing with Sh. Roshan Singh and Sh. Deepak clearly indicate his association with the syndicate and with the fraudulent import. 7. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 12th April, 2013 on Roshan Singh and Company and Narinder Kumar jointly in February, as to why not the seized fire crackers be not confiscated alongwith seized E-glass chopped spec mat (B grade) valued at Rs. 30,00,500/- alongwith t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E Glass Off Spec Chopped Strand Mat (B Grade)". (a) Sh. Deepak Rishi in his statement dated 15/16.10.2012 in para 7 (A) (xvi) had categorically stated that:- "(xvi) neither S/Shri. Nitin/Nikhil nor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Sh. Pramod Kumar (CHA) were aware about the concealment of the fire cracker/fireworks in the containers" (b) Further, it is also an admitted fact that Sh. Hemant Sachdeva, Sh. Deepak Rishi and Sh. Hemant Gandhi were mastermind behind the importing and clearance of alleged goods. The Adjudicating authority itself had accepted this fact:- "Para 40.3 .............. I find that Sh. Hemant Gandhi was one of the master mind in the clearance of the illegally imported goods". (c) Further in para 40.7 of the impugned OIO it was observed that: - "Para 40.7 ........It clearly indicated that the clearance process was controlled by Sh. Narinder Kumar. It was Sh. Narinder Kumar who promised to pay to Shri. Deepak Rishi Rs.10,00,000/- for clearance of one container posing as Roshan Singh [Refer statement dated 15/16.10.2012 of Shri Deepak Rishi recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962] and it was Shri. Narinder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of department that IEC was obtained on forged documents. Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified. Refer case: • Vikram Singh Dahiya vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi, 2008 (233) ELT 619 (Tri- Delhi) • Commissioner of Customs vs. Sanjay Aggarwal, 2011 (269) ELT 153 (Guj) (iv) Absence of mens rea and no abetment of offence of importing restricted goods, renders the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Act as wrong, erroneous and not in accordance with law. • Penalty under Section 114AA of the Act is imposed for the use of false and incorrect material. The Appellant herein was not involved in defrauding the Customs by way of submitting any wrong information intentionally or knowingly. The information about the import of goods were true and correct as per his knowledge and belief. Refer case: • Shri D.Sahil, Proprietor of M/s. Maahdev Granites vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2021 (9)TMI 814- CESTAT Chennai. • M/s. Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, 2019 (7) TMI 1305- CESTAT Chennai ....