TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RDER ORDER : [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalties on them under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1. Both the appeals are arising out of common facts and order and therefore, both are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that intelligence was developed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to the effect that certain inferior quality goods were allegedly being exported by one entity, namely, M/s. Linwood Sales Private Limited in connivance with its Customs Broker, namely, M/s. S.K.H. Freight Logistics Private Limited while using multiple shipping bills, and that the same were allegedly being overvalued to earn u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsent in this case. 4.1. He further submits that to impose penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act, the appellant should have been "assisting in, or in any way aiding, any carrier or other person in import or export of goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act" by knowingly facilitating misclassification or undervaluation. It is his submission that nowhere in the Show Cause Notice it has been alleged that the appellant no. 1 had provided false documentation or knowingly misled the Customs officials regarding the classification, quantity or value of the goods in question; the appellant's role as a freight forwarder was strictly limited and he possessed no authority to alter or influence the contents of the said documents. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forwarded to the appellant which remained unexplained; based on such a situation it has been presumed that the appellant no. 2, amongst others (i.e., Shri Sanjay Singh Mourya) 'appeared to be part of syndicate, engaged in the fraudulent export to avail undue drawback'. He contends that such a charge is without any corroborative evidence and merely based on surmises and conjectures, since at no point of time either the exporter or one Shri Sumit Agarwal, who is pre-supposed to be the key behind the smuggling syndicate, had ever stated about any role played by the appellant no. 2; even the exporter and/or its directors did not say anything about the appellant no. 2 having played any role. 5.1. It is also the submission of the Ld. Counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion. With regard to the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Act, it is a fact that at the time the statement of the appellant was recorded, it had been stated by the appellant that he had sent the containers for loading the subject goods and one Shri Ajay Sarawogi alias Vicky, another appellant before us, was present, to whom the containers had reported. Thus, we find that the goods were attempted to be illegally exported by the exporter with the connivance of the appellant no. 1. In these circumstances, penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act is rightly imposable on the appellant no. 1. 8.2. In view of this, the penalty imposed on the appellant no. 1 under Section 114(iii) of the Act is confirmed and the penalty imposed ....