TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Sathe. The present Appellant referred the clearance work to another CB as his firm was primarily engaged in handling export clearances. 3. Following investigations by the DRI, the consignment was found to contain '29,775 kg of Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)' which attracted Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under notification no. 38/2015-Cus (ADD) dated 06/08/2015. The adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of the subject imported goods (20,225 kg of 'Citric Acid Monohydrate & 29,775 kg of 'Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C). However, he has given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has imposed penalty of Rs. 9,00,000 each under section 112(b) and section 114AA on Raju alias Shamshir Alam Shams Tabrez Sayyed (the beneficial owner). 4. The Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on Shri Nirav Pasad, CB Ashtavinayak Inference LLP handling the import consignment under 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on Kiran Acharya, the intermediary referring the clearance work to CB Ashtavinayak Inference LLP under section 112(a) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g his train journey from Thane to Kalyan and discussed the idea of import of citric acid ; ➤ Requested him (Narendra Sathe) to allow an IEC in his name for imports for a commission ' Thus, Mr. Shamshir alias Raju in understanding with Mr. Narendra Sathe arranged for the IEC in the name of Omega Enterprises. The Commissioner has not appreciated that Shamshir alias Raju has not implicated the Appellant Mr. Kiran Acharya in any manner for any role in arranging the IEC.7. 9. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue has justified the impugned order and submitted that the Appeals filed by the Appellant being devoid of any merits be dismissed. 10. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 11. I find that that the IEC holder in his statement recorded by the investigating officer on 30/09/2019, has not blamed the Appellant as the person for getting the IEC or its mis-use. The IEC Holder in his statement has apparently suggested that his Aadhar and PAN were misused to get IEC in the name of Omega Enterprises and one another firm. He has indicated the possible misuse by his friends Arun / Deepak Thakur & Rajesh Tiwari. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Appellant was not having any contacts of transporters. 14. The contention of the Appellant was never disputed during the course of investigations as well as in the SCN. Moreover, the contention of the Appellant in this regard is verifiable from the record with Customs (EDI System Record) rather than expecting a negative proof from the Appellant. The Commissioner has observed that it was beyond common sense to accept that while roaming at JNCH, Mr Raju had chance meeting with Shri Kiran Acharya who accepted his request of clearance of import consignment but instead of clearing on his own, Shri Kiran handed over the work to other Custom Brokers on the pretext that he was handling only export that too without any documentary evidences to support such claim of handling only exports. 15. The observation of the Commissioner is very much presumptuous and ignores the practical reality. It is common that the Customs Brokers develop expertise in either import or export and only some undertake the work related to both import as well as export clearance. It is also common that the Customs Brokers develop expertise in specific commodities. Therefore, the Commissioner is in error in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The beneficial owner Shamshir Alam (Raju) in his statement dated 07/08/2019 has categorically submitted that he received the documents related to the import of the consignment of citric acid through courier from the supplier company. Regarding the earlier consignment he has stated that the import documents used to come by FedEx to Sathe's (IEC Holder) residence. 19. Referral of the importer to a Customs Broker cannot be considered as guarantee against any lapse by the importer about which the Appellant may not be aware. Moreover, even a Customs Broker who actually undertakes the clearance work cannot be held responsible for the correctness of the documents forwarded by the importer client. 20. The Appellant referring the Customs clearance work to a Customs Broker is not liable for penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as- ➤ No omission or commission by the Appellant making the imported goods liable for confiscation ➤ Bill of entry not filed by the Appellant Only referral role: Giving business reference not an offense ➤ Goods not liable for confiscation due to use of IEC by person other than IEC Ho....