TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the impugned goods, i.e. imitation jewellery were actually first exported out of India to M/s. Adelaide Global General Trading LLC, Dubai, and thereafter re-exported to India by them, and to cover up the same, the importer on behalf of Shri Deepak Kumar Mehta, Director of M/s. Fortress Packaging Private Limited, requested the shipping company, M/s. IAL Logistics India Pvt. Ltd to issue the bill of lading in the name of M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC, where Deepak Mehta is the partner. Shri Deepak Mehta in connivance with Shri Rakesh Kumar, proprietor of the importer company wrongly claimed the goods of UAE origin. Shri Deepak Mehta concealed the fact and wrongly claimed that M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC, Dubai was the exporter from Dubai. They also deliberately submitted fake invoice showing wrong C&F value. 3. The appellant, an employee of the shipping line, M/s. IAL Logistics India Ltd was working as Operation Manager. The allegation against the appellant is that he in his statement dated 8.01.2015, recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wrongly stated that the supplier of the goods in the subject container was Jubilee Middle East General Tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong declaration of the name of the exporter in the bill of lading and wrong declaration of country of origin of goods in order to evade customs duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that Shri Ravinder Singh, Regional Manager of the Shipping Line clarified that the copies of invoices submitted by him were of M/s. Adelaide Global General Trading LLC, Dubai and bore the signature of the exporter. All documents i.e. consignee claim copy of Federal Customs Authority, Dubai and other documents were available with the appellant, yet he willfully made wrong statement on 8.01.2015, that the supplier of the goods in the subject container was M/s Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC, Dubai. Therefore, the penalty under Section 114 AA of the Act on the appellant is sustainable. 9. We may first deal with the statement made by the appellant which reads as under:- "Ans.1 - I wish to state that two consignments of M/s. Advance Technology Services (Container Nos.IALU2126915 & TEMU3586400) have been received through our shipping line based at Dubai in Delhi. The same were routed through Mundra Gatewa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aza Box 55427, Dubai U.A.E. and as per request of the shipper i.e. M/s. Adelaide Global General Trading LLc Office No.155, Plot No.127- 752,HOR AL ANZ, Plaza BOX 55427, Dubai U.A.E. vide Indemnity Letter referred above our Dubai Branch Office issued Bill of lading No.JEATKD042040 dated 06.11.2014 in the name of M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC, P.O.BOX 835541, Dubai U.A.E." 11. In his statement Shri Ravinder Singh though stated that the shipper is M/s. Adelaide Global General Trading LLC, however he admitted that at their request, the Dubai branch of the Shipping Line issued the bill of lading in the name of M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC, Dubai, UAE. From the RUDs placed on record by the learned AR, we find the Bill of Lading dated 6.11.2014 the supplier has been mentioned as M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC Dubai, UAE. Therefore, the appellant is not wrong in saying that the shipper/supplier is M/s. Jubilee Middle East General Trading LLC. Hence, no fault can be attributed on the appellant. 12. To consider the applicability of the provisions Section 114 AA of the Act, the same are quoted below:- "Section 114AA of the Act - Pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irection as the offences involve criminal intent which cannot be treated at part with other instances of evasion of duty. The committee, however, advice the Government to monitor the implementation of the provision with due diligence and care so as to ensure that it does not result in undue harassment." The purpose behind introduction of Section 114 AA was to punish those people who availed export benefits without exporting anything which according to the learned Counsel for the appellant is not the case here. The provisions of section 114 AA provides for imposition of penalty on a person who knowingly or intentionally make, sign, uses or causes to be made any declaration, statement or documents, which is false or incorrect in any material particular in the transaction of any business for the purpose of the Act. From the statement of Shri Ravinder Singh (as quoted above), we find that the manipulation in the documents were done by the Dubai Branch of the shipping line at the behest of the actual supplier. There is no evidence to link the appellant with the said manipulation done at Dubai office. The shipping line has not been roped in the present proceedings. The revenue has not....