TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- under Section 112 and Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 [The Act] upon the appellant. The appellant is stated to have been engaged by M/s Shankeshwar Impex Pvt Ltd. and tasked with looking after customs clearance work since 2016. 2. According to the respondent, the appellant introduced a representative of M/s PRM International Hong Kong Ltd. to the Customs House Agent, M/s Krishna Logistics Management and which connection was thereafter utilised for the purposes of clearance of goods. The principal allegation against the appellant and other parties was with respect to an attempt to remove imported goods on the basis of forged and fabricated gate passes, without filing the Bills of Entry and without payment of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact in the State of Maharashtra and which would be duly borne out from the Call Detail Records [CDR]. 6. Dealing with the said two issues, the CESTAT in the impugned order has observed as under:- "22. Ld. Commissioner rejecting the contentions observed that the three witnesses in spite of numerous notices/summons for cross examination did not turn up, which is not sufficient ground to render their statements irrelevant. There are also other evidences on record, independent of the statements made by such persons, which supports the allegation. Further, all the persons, whose statements are relied upon, are the co-noticees. Thus, their non-appearance for cross-examination is evidently in mutual interest and benefit of the co-accused, cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, in spite of being away from Delhi, he was keeping a tab on the plan of removal, showing or proving his involvement. The allegation is further proved in view of the fact, in striking of deal with the cargo consolidator (Ms. Sonia) for Rs.750/- per kg. and thereafter, engaging Mr. Abhishek Mishra for the attempted removal. Interaction with Mr. Abhishek Mishra is supported by call detail records. 23. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner held that Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 111 (j) read with Section 112 of the Act and further, liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Act for making arrangement and causing use of forged/fabricated gate pass. The residual penalty under Section 117 of the Act was....