TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 having IEC No.0217504108 imported six consignments at Kolkata Port from Hongkong/China, out of which, two were already cleared, for another three consignments, Bills of Entry were filed and the Bill of Entry was yet to be filed for the six consignments. It was found that IEC holders are not the actual importers of these consignments. The copy of IEC has been obtained from DGFT. It was further found that M/s A.S.S.Tradcom is a partnership Company having partners, Shri Sailendra Singh and Shr Rajesh Roy, residents of Kolkata and Howrah respectively. It was seen that the Customs Broker for the Bills of Entry filed by the above said imports, is one M/s Modern Agency and two consignments were already cleared. Remaining four consignments were examined and found that the goods have been mis-declared and undervalued. It was found that these are branded goods, which amounting the case of suppression and smuggling. All the consignments were seized on the reasonable believe that the said consignments were imported with intention to evade payment of Customs duty misdeclaring those to a different materials of low value. No request for provisional release from the importer was made. It was fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted with the said consignments. Another statement of the appellant was recorded and show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to impose penalty under Section 112 (a) & 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging that the appellant has intended to abet the import of mis-declared and under-valued import in the name of M/s A.S.S.Tradcom. 2.4 During adjudication, the appellant sought copies of relied upon document and sought time to file the reply to the show-cause notice, but no reasonable opportunities were granted to the appellant. Thereafter, it was concluded that the appellant is not interested to pursue his case and the matter was adjudicated and observed that the appellant has acted as per the request of Shri Sameer Sharma. Therefore, the appellant intended to abet hugely misdeclared and undeclared import and is liable for penal action under Section 112 (a) & 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. For the act of omission and commission and penalty of Rs.20.00 lakhs was imposed. 2.5 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Çounsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that as per the investigation, it is alleged that the appellant came to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 1990 (48) ELT 214 (Mad.) and prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and submits that that the appellant came to DRI Office to facilitate the clearance of the consignment, which was under-valued and mis-declared by the importer and the actual importer was not traceable. In that circumstances, the appellant was involved in illegal or illicit import of the impugned consignments. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records, we find that during the course of investigation, it is found that on 25.08.2017, the appellant visited the DRI Office along with one Shri Sameer Sharma, on whose persuasion, the appellant came to the DRI Office to facilitate the clearance of the impugned consignment, but it is very strange, that when Shri Sameer Sharma has also visited DRI Office along with the appellant, why the statement of Shri Sameer Sharma, who is alleged to be tout in the import of the impugned goods, was not recorded ? It is found from the record that it has been alleged that the appellant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....market inquiry in such a manner so as to aid the fraudulent exporters to draw heavy duty draw backs. Apparently, this inquiry was conducted post the alleged fraudulent exports were already made. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that to constitute abetment the abetor has to come into action of abeting the offender prior later does or fails to do an act which amounts to committing the crime/offence. The market inquiry was post the commission of crime of fraudulent export of handwoven carpets which were otherwise liable for confiscation to wrongly avail higher duty draw-back by Mr. Sajjan Kumar. Hence, no question arises of abeting him at a stage later than the commission of said fraudulent exports. There is no evidence produced by the 9 Customs Appeal No. 52193 of 2019 [SM] department which may prove that the appellant ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided Shri Sajjan Kumar to fraudulently export the hand woven carpets to traders in different countries and to take as high as 12 Crores of drawback in DAPL and higher drawback in other companies as well. There is no evidence that appellant has been the beneficiary of these amounts or part thereof. From the....