TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed by the Adjudicating Authority were upheld as under:- (i) Pratik Bhansali- Rs. 10.0 lakh u/s 114 (iii) & Rs. 15.0 lakh u/s 114AA. (ii) Zayd Chakkiwala - Rs. 10.0 lakh u/s 114 (iii) & Rs. 15.0 lakh u/s 114AA. (iii) Kaustubh Parikh - Rs. 10.0 lakh u/s 114 (iii) & Rs. 15.0 lakh u/s 114AA. 1.2 The brief facts of the case are that Shri Pratik Bhansali worked as President of M/s. A. V. Joshi & Company, a Container Freight Station at Kandla. In April, 2017, he was approached by Shri Alok and Shri Arvind on behalf of exporter firm M/s. Haresh Fashion for export of woven girl fancy frock of MMF and thereafter, he received 02 samples through courier. He sent the same to Shri Balaji Naidu, Custom Broker. Thereafter, on 25.05.2017, the expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods shown in the export invoices and packing list etc. were fixed by him with actual value of goods is Rs.50 to 65 only per piece. That shipping bills, E-Annex, Check list were prepared by CHA on his instructions, that the export material is overvalued to avail higher amounts of drawback, that he is to be beneficiary of 60% of drawback to be approved. 1.4 The penalty on Shri Kaustubh Parikh was imposed on the ground that he has also admitted in his statement that he has prepared the invoices and details of packing list, that he had provided soft copies of the invoices and packing list prepared by him at his office. 1.5. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original, all the three appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 12.06.2017, the appellant in the statements, was coerced into stating value of goods as well as assurance of 40 % duty drawback. This is evident from the fact that appellant was deliberately summoned for recording statements on day-to-day basis on 12.06.2017, 13.06.2017, 14.06.2017, 15.06.2017 despite informing the officers about his wedding to be held on 27.06.2017 at Jodhpur (with pre-wedding functions commencing from 22.06.2017) and again summoned for recording statements on 05.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 with constant threat of arrest before and after marriage. Hence, statements of Shri Pratik Bhansali holds no evidentiary value. On the above basis, it is submitted that Shri Pratik Bhansali is not liable to penalty under Section 114 (iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant was to receive 60% share of duty drawback is incorrect inasmuch as the exporter is on record stating that it was he who intended to avail higher drawback coupled with the fact that he was acting at the behest of Shri Namubhai. Hence, the appellant is falsely implicated in this case. As such, the appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 114 (iii) and 114AA of Customs Act,1962. 2.3 As regard the appeal of Shri Kaustubh Parikh, Shri Divyanshu Chaudhary, Learned Counsel appeared. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant was merely an employee of the company working on the instructions of his seniors on a fixed salary. He was working under the instruction of the exporter. He has no knowledge that the goods shall be laible to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not have known of correct valuation or consequences of over valuation. Irregularities committed by CHA M/s. United Safeway India Pvt Ltd of not checking the consignment, cannot be pinned at on an inexperienced employee such as the appellant simply working on the instruction of his employer without any market knowledge to be able to trace malafide intentions in the action of the other parties concern. The appellant is neither the exporter nor the custom broker, he is merely a co- noticee. He further submits that the appellant is merely a co-noticee , it appears that the impugned order penalized the exporter or the custom broker for Rs. 10 lakh while the appellant is penalized for a total amount of Rs. 25 Lakh which is arbitrarily whims....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him but he was repeatedly summoned and in the subsequent statement he stated that he was supposed to get 40% of the duty draw back. When there are two contradictory statements by one person, those statements cannot be relied upon. Moreover, when the appellant right from their reply to show cause notice denied the allegation, the adjudicating authority was supposed to cross-examine the witnesses, however, no cross-examination has been conducted. 4.2 It is also observed that as regard the allegation of sharing 40% or 60% drawback by Shri Pratik Bhansali and Shri Zayd Chakkiwala , no documentary evidence was brought on record for any past incident that they have received any such sharing of the drawback, therefore, the penalties under Section....