TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) of other traders and also by way of misdeclaration. Based on the intelligence, two containers were identified and detained by the Docks Intelligence Unit (DIU) at two CFS in Chennai. Bills of Entry were not filed for these consignments. These containers were consigned to M/s. Blueleaf Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. It was noticed that CHA's M/s. Flycon Logistics and M/s. Shiv Ambica Clearing and Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. have filed bills of entry for the said importer in the past. Verification of the customs duty payment particulars of M/s. Blueleaf Enterprises, revealed that they had been paid by various traders i.e. Vaaraahi Traders and Mahaveer Trading. Further verification revealed that Mahaveer Trading had received payments from M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. during November 2015. M/s. Vaaraahi Traders is the sister concern of Shri Hari Prabhu, who is the Director of M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the role of M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. in various customs imports using various IE codes was suspected. After due process of law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority revoked the Customs Broker license and also forfeited the security deposit and imposed a penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to him by one of the directors of the appellant, when in respect of such imports another Customs Broker had filed the subject bills lacked any credence and that even assuming but without admitting that it is a true fact in the absence of any details of such bills of entry or any allegation of any misdemeanour in respect of such bills of entry, the alleged ground lacking any evidence cannot be ignored for initiation or sustaining any penal proceedings against the appellant. viii. Somebody concerned with some alleged irregular imports are not traceable or somebody functioned from a premise which was allegedly to be the erstwhile office of the appellant cannot be the ground for penalising the appellant that too without even making an allegation let alone proving the same with evidence. ix. The appellant also submits that on the very same fact notices having been issued to them under the Customs Act which they are suitably defending the extraneous and unsustainable order passed revoking their license in anticipation is not proper or correct and needs to be vacated in the interest of justice He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and their appeal allowed. 3.2 Shri Anoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stablished. Further verifications of the past shipments of the elusive M/s Blueleaf Enterprises Pvt. Ltd showed that the transporter of the goods vehicle Shri G. Ganapathy admitted to delivering the imported goods at a place in Redhills / Puzhal as instructed by Shri Ramesh, who had his office at Royapuram, Chennai. Enquiries revealed that the Royapuram address was the office of M/s Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt Ltd and Ramesh was the staff of the firm. Although summons were issued to Ramesh, he did not turn up. The Ld. AR stated that further enquiries showed that in the case of MSMK Trading Co. one Shri M D Kathikeyan had filed 148 Bills of Entry on behalf of M/s Shri Shiv Ambica Clearing and Forwarding Pvt Ltd and Flycon Logistics. Similar Bills had been filed for the past clearances also. Shri M D Kathikeyan in his statement admitted that 145 Bills were filed for Raj Brothers as per documents given to him by Mr Shiva and Mr. Ramesh of Raj Brothers, on behalf of Shri Shiv Ambica. His role was confined only to filing of the Bills and other aspects of clearing mainly CFS work, transport etc were looked after by the staff of Raj brothers. He was paid Rs 2000/- per consignment by Mr Rame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs. State of Haryana and others - 1989 (2) Supreme Court Cases 177; State Bank of India Vs Samarendra Kishore Endow - 1994 (1) SLR 516; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India Vs UOI - AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 484 / 1995 (6) SCC 749] 5. The investigation in the impugned case points to acts being done covertly and the importer of the container not presenting himself to the officers for an enquiry, with facts relating to the alleged violations of the Customs Act and CBLR being in the special or peculiar knowledge of the persons involved. It is also trite law that the belief, knowledge and intention of the parties are evidence, and these can be gathered from the actions of individuals and from documents, including statements of individuals, related to the appellant. However the burden of producing some evidence in respect of the fact in issue remains on the department. The standard of holding an issue proved is by the test of a prudent man who upon weighing the various probabilities finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple [(2003) 8 SCC 752], held as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mselves before the authorities, still it is well settled that strong suspicion, strange coincidences and grave doubts cannot take the place of legal proof. [See: State of Kerala Vs M.K. Mathew, (1978) 42 STC 348]. 6. Evidence in this case is mainly in the form of statements. The statements made against the appellant are not corroborated by independent evidence and hence when they are refuted by the appellant in their own statements, the evidence would fail the test of a prudent man and are to be held as 'not proved'. The original authority has reached a conclusion without adducing proper proof. In an issue having penal consequences, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. The appeal hence succeeds. As per the erstwhile Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it stood during the relevant time, a fact is said 'not to be proved' when it is neither proved nor disproved. 7. Having found in favour of the appellant we do not feel it necessary to go into the other grounds raised by the appellant. 8. It must be said before parting that while going through the Appeal Memorandum we are anguished to notice a use of invective language against the Ld. Commissioner. The expressio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the two opponent counsel are the wheels of the chariot. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the Judge holding the reigns, the movement itself is facilitated by the wheels without which the chariot of justice may not move and may even collapse. Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of chariot. As a responsible officer of the court, as they are called __ and rightly, the counsel have an over all obligation of assisting the courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but over-zealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the personality of a professional. An advocate while discharging duty to his client, has a right to do every thing fearlessly and boldly that would advance the cause of his client. After all he has been engaged by his client to secure justice for him. A counsel need not make a concession merely because it would please the Judge. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independe....