TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) imported by Ms. Ramesh and Company, Opposite Preet, Foundary, G.T. Road, Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh 147301, under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.2 I order for confiscation of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) seized, used as cover goods having a wholesale price of Rs.63,19,764/- and assessable value of Rs.55,49,034/- imported by Ms. Ramesh and Company, Opposite Prect Foundary, G.T. Road, Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh 147 301 under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m)read with Section 116 & 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give the party an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs,14,00,000/-(Rupees Fourtcen Lakh) only in lieu of confiscation of goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which may be exercised within thirty days of the issue of this order. 8.1.3 I hereby impose a penalty Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only upon M/s. Ramesh and Company under the provisions of Section 112(a) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.4 I hereby impose a penalty Rs, 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fine of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) only in lieu of confiscation of goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which may be exercised within thirty days of the issue of this order. 8.1.11 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only upon M/s Vipan & Company, under Section 112(a) (i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.12 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- Rupees Ten Lakh) only upon M/s Vipan & Company, under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.13 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only upon Shri Bhavesh Thakkar, owner of M/s. Shyam Shipping Agency, under Section 112(a) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.14 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only upon Shri Mukesh Thacker, under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.15 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs 20000001- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only upon Shri Kamlesh Ratanshi Sonagela under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.1.16 I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) only upon Shri Kamlesh Ratanshi Sonagela under Section 114....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....694 nozzles were recovered and the same were seized under Panchnama dated 11.08.2014 on a reasonable belief that the recovered R-22 Gas Cylinders illegally imported in contravention of restriction imposed under various laws,.were liable to confiscation under Section 111 and Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. One Samsung LED TV and 694 pcs. of nozzles illegally imported by Ms. Vipan and Company, in container no. BLJU 2083609 were also placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, vide Seizure Memo dated 17.12.20 14 2.3 In the mean-time, 25 containers imported by M/s. Ramesh and Company and 10 containers were imported by M/s Vipin and Company declared to contain HMS arrived at ICD, Loni, Ghaziabad (UP). On examination of the containers of M/s Ramesh and Company the said containers, were found to contain HMS along with 3024, R.22 Gas Cylinders having marking "REFRIGERANT 22 CHLOROFLUOROCARBO CHCIF2 CAS 75-45-6 NON-FLAMMABLE LIQUEFID GAS NON-REFILLABLE NONREUSABLE 30 LBS.NET WEIGHT 13.6 KG" concealed behind the HMS by using a false and temporary partition between the stock of HMS and R-22 gas cylinders were found. 2.4 Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Act, 1962. During the search, the personnel of M/s. Premier Cargo Movers informed that the office of another firm namely M/s. Shyam Shipping Agency (Owned by Shri Bhavesh Thakkar (Appellant 3) and having Shri Mukesh Thacker (Appellant 4) as employee) is also situated at the said premises which was engaged in the business of transportation and shifting of the containers imported by above two importers. 2.4 After completion of investigations and enquiries, a Show Cause Notice 26.12.2014, was issued to the appellants and others. Show Cause Notice was followed by the Corrigendum dated 30.04.2015, an addendum dated 17.06.2015. The appellants and others were called upon to show cause as to why: 3.1 Ms. Ramesh and Company, Opposite Preet Foundary. Mandi Gobindgarh 147301 (Punjab)'to explain as to why: 3.1.1 The recovered and seized 3024 nos. of Refrigerant 22 gas cylinders having a wholesale price of Rs,1,64,50,560/- and assessable value of Rs. 1,33,02,334/- fraudulently imported in the containers covered under Bill of Lading No. JBL/LON/FCL/20141608 dated 27.06.14 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of the Customs Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai - 401107 (MS) to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omission and commission brought out hereunder. 3.4 Shri Mukesh Thacker, S/o Shri Shankarlal Thackar, R/o C-1, 204, Mayfil Tower, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Haryana and permanent resident of C/o Shri Shankarlal Thacker, Luhana Street, Naliya, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat to explain as to why penalty should not be inposed upon him under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his omission and commission. 3.5 Shri Kamlesh Ratanshi Sonagela, s/o Shri Ratanshi Kakubhai Sonagela, resident of Lohana Street, Naliya Kachchh-370655 Gujarat (permanent address), resident of R.P.V. Vasa, Flat No.1 Bhagwan Niwas, R.R.T. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai- residing at 1002. Sheikha Mariyam 400080 (in-law's address) and presently Building, Opposite Standard Bank, Baniyas Road, Deaira, Post Box 139, Dubai to explain as to why 'penalty should not be imposed upon him under section 112(a)(i) and section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for his omission and commission. 3.6 M/s Premier Cargo Movers, Building No. 170-171, Flat No. 6-7(First F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ⮚ Thereafter on 28.07.2014 & 04.08.2014 DRI recorded the statement of Appellant 1. In his inculpatory statement, Appellant 1 insinuated the Appellant. ⮚ Similarly in his statement recorded on 21.07.2014, Appellant 2 insinuated the Appellant. ⮚ DRI summoned Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 and again recorded their statement on 09/10.12.2014. On the basis of their statement Appellant and his employee Appellant 4 were also summoned. ⮚ Officers perforce obtained the Appellants signature on a statement already prepared and typed on their computer and thereafter arrested the importers as well as Appellant and his employee. ⮚ Immediately on production before the before the ACJM Ghaziabad, the appellant apprised the court of coercion/ mistreatment and retracted his statement. ⮚ Penalty has been imposed upon the appellant solely relying on his statement dated 10.12.2014 which was neither voluntary nor made by him, but on which he was made to sign perforce. ⮚ It is settled law that appellant cannot be held guilty on the basis of the statements of co-accused and his retracted statements. Reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Amendment Rules, 2014. He was also not authorized/registered person to import, sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute, purchase Ozone Depleting Substance under Rules 3, 30, 31 and 32 of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004. 7.4.2 It becomes crystal clear that, Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, played an important role in getting the R-22 gas cylinders loaded in his presence by way of concealment in such a manner, whereby a temporary and false partition was erected running across the breadth of the container and 80-90% in height of the container. This was a well devised strategy on the part of Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, to conceal the R-22 cylinders in such a way to disable the view from the front in case of examination by the Customs Officers at ICD, Loni, Ghaziabad (UP). Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal remained throughout the stuffing of R-22 gas cylinders and returned to India only after that. He all along knew that he did not have a valid licence permit/ authorization issued by DGFT for the legal import and instigated, aided and abetted smuggling of R-22 gas cylinders. His role, in the case has also been confirmed and corroborated by the statements of Shri Bhavesh Thakkar and Shri Kamlesh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er s + Samsun g LED TV + Nozzles 7 Do BLJU2086125 HMS 21090 HMS/R-22 Gas Cylinder 17045/504 4045 kgs short (HMS) + R-22 Gas Cylinder s 8 09.07.1 4 BLJU2231603 HMS 21310 HMS/R-22 Gas Cylinder 16195/504 5115 kgs short (HMS) + R-22 Gas Cylinder s 9 Do SEGU1268548 HMS 21190 HMS 27010 5820 Kgs excess HMS 10 10.07.1 4 BLJU2083240 HMS 20130 HMS/R-22 Gas Cylinder 14705/504 5425 kgs short (HMS) + R-22 Gas Cylinder s 11 Do BLJU2041769 HMS 20960 HMS/R-22 Gas Cylinder 15980/504 4980 kgs short (HMS) + R-22 Gas Cylinder s Total 228850 HMS/R-22 Gas Cylinder/ LED TV/ Nozzles 221355/ 3024/ 4/1/694 7.5.2 On perusal of the chart, I find that :11 containers imported by M/s. Vipan and Company, shipped by M/s. Aditi Global General Trading LLC, Dubai, UAE, covered under Bill of Lading No. JBL/LON/FCL/20141531 dated 21.06.2014; issued by Ms. Balaji Shipping Lines FZCO, declared to contain HMS were examined thoroughly by the DRI and the 3024 PCs. of R-22 Gas Cylinders having marking "REFRIGERANT 22 CHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE CHCIF2 CAS 75-45-6 NONFLAMMA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation of Rules 5(1), 6, 7 and 10 of the Ozone Depleting Substance Rules, 2000 as amended by Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation and control) Amendment Rules, 2014 as they were not authorized/registered person to import, sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute, purchase Ozone Depleting Substance under Rules 3, 30, 31 and 32 of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004. 7.5.6 I also find that Shri Vipan Garg, Proprietor of M/s Vipan and Company, in his statements tendered under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has himself accepted that in the Bill of Lading, in respect of the seized goods, only HMS was declared and R-22 gas cylinders were deliberately not mentioned on account of his non-possession of any import licence or permit issued by DGFT. He agreed to import R-22 gas cylinders illegally for monetary consideration as he was going to get Rs. 350.00 for each R-22 gas cylinder. He knew very well that the import of R22 gas cylinders required license from DGFT, which he was not having. After going through he notification dated 19.07.2000 as amended by notification dated 18.09.2007 of Ministry of Environment and Forest, Gas Cylinders Rule, 2004, the Legal Metrology Act, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Shri Ashok Kumar had supervised the loading of R-22 gas cylinders and he also occasionally remained present during the loading of R-22 gas cylinders. He told Shri Mukesh Thacker that these containers were containing R-22 gas cylinders at the back portion & he will give him some extra money after clearance upon which Shri Mukesh Thacker agreed to take care of clearance and handing over the containers containing R-22 gas cylinders to the person of Shri Kamlesh at the place which was to be decided by them 7.6.2 I have perused the above statements of Shri Bhavesh Thakkar and I hold that he was one of the key conspirators in the illegal import of R-22 gas cylinders in close association with Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal and Shri Kamlesh Ratanshi Sonagela. He was fully aware that import of R-22 gas cylinders in India was under restricted category and the cylinders could not be imported into India without obtaining the specific permission/Licence from DGFT. He was also among the key players devising the strategy to conceal the R-22 gas cylinders at the back portion of the container behind HMS, by putting an artificial partition between the HMS & R-22 gas cylinders. His role also has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstant case, he was told by his employer to take extra care of Customs clearance in respect of the import consignment of M/s Ramesh and Company & M/s Vipan and Company for which he was going to get some extra money from his employer i.e. Shri Bhavesh Thakkar 7.7.2 He was also shown the following statements tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, (a) Statement of Sh. Bhavesh Thakkar dated 15.07.2014, 09/10.12.2014, (b) Statement of Ms. Rajani Sharma, Receptionist-cumCustomer Service Executive of M/s Shyam Shipping Agency, New Delhi dated 16.07.2014, (c) Statement of Sh. Vipan Garg of M/s Vipan & EURo. dated 21.07.2014, 09/10.12.2014, (d) Statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Goyal dated 28.07.2014. he (Shri Mukesh) agreed with his role regarding the clearance of goods including the goods imported by Ms Ramesh & Co. and M/s Vipan & Co. and the goods seized by DRI which have been correctly recorded in the above statements. 7.7.3 In view of his above-narrated role, it is evident that he knew each and everything about the illegal activities being carried out by the syndicate comprising Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Shri Vipan, Shri Kam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant 3 and 4 before the adjudicating authority which as reproduced in the impugned order are as follows: "4.3 Mukesh_Thacker s/o_ Shri_Shankerlal Thacker. Faridabad:- written reply was filed by Sh.Ram Pratap Kaushal, Advocate, CH, 180A, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, on behalf of Shri Mukesh Thacker, relevant portion of which is as under : - (i) During the course of investigation, DRI interrogated the Noticee also on 09.12.2014 and 10.12.2014, obtained signature per force on the statements of other conoticees and now solely on the basis of the same have implicated the Noticee in the present case proposing penalty under Section 1 12(a)(1) of the Customs Act,1962. Copies of the statements available on record clearly show that he was not involved in any of the activities and performed his duties at the command of his master without being aware of the ground realities. (ii) The only allegation against the Noticee in the entire Show Cause Notice is that the Co Noticee Shri Bhavesh Thakkar had informed the Noticee about the import of R-.22 Gas cylinder and hence the Noticee had knowledge of illegal import of R-22 Refrigerant Gas which in Noticee's resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee submits that otherwise also it is a settled law that penalty cannot be imposed solely on the basis of the statement of the co noticees without any corroborative evidences as held by the Hon'ble Court and Tribunal in the matter of Pradeep Sah as reported in 2006(197)ELT 301(Tri), Jaswinder Sing Vs. CCas reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal) and in the matter ofMehmood Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customsas reported in2002(140)ELT97. The Noticee submits that the proposed penal action is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. (vii) Noticee also prays the Hon'ble Commissioner to kindly grant cross-examination of Shri Bhavesh Thacker, proprietor of M/s. Shyam Shipping Agency whose statement has been relied in the impugned Show Cause Notice to propose penalty on the Noticee to cull out true and correct facts of the case. Noticee further submits that cross examination is a justiciable right and any order passed without grating cross examination render the order illegal in view of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxman Exports Vs. CCE - 2002(143) ELT 21 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal in the matters of M/s Rakihi Isoat Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces, the Noticee respectfully prays the Hon'ble Commissioner to drop the proceedings proposed against the Noticee in the impugned show cause notice in the interest of justice and in the event a contrary action is contemplated to grant cross examination of Shri Bhavesh Thakkar prayed in para 3.4 above and to afford a personal hearing to enable the Noticee to present his case for appreciation of his conduct in proper perspective. 4.4 Shri Bhavesh Thakkar, Proprietor of M/s Shyam Shipping Agency, B-51, Navkunj Apartment, New Delhi 110092:- written defence reply was filed by Sh. Reena Rawat, Advocate, Piyush Kumar Associates, on behalf of Shri Bhavesh Thakker, relevant portion of which is as under : (i) At the very outset Noticee submits that the case of the DRI against him is patently misconceived and baseless and therefore Noticee denies the allegations and repudiates the penal action proposed against him in totality. (ii) Noticee is a proprietor of M/s. Shyam Shipping Agency, a freight forwarder, engaged in providing logistic support to the importers through the port of Inland Container Depot, Ghaziabad and Dadri since 2013. Noticee submits that he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted the statements and apprised about maltreatment. Now solely on the basis of above statements, the Noticee has been implicated as one of the mastermind in the present case proposing penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. (Copy whereof is enclosed) (v) Noticee at the very outset submits that the Show Cause Notice insofar as it relates to the answering Noticee is patently misconceived, out of context and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and attendant provisions of law and hence is neither sustainable on facts nor in law and therefore deserves to be dropped in limine and therefore, the Noticee begs to make the following submissions for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Commissioner. The Noticee submits that that except for providing freight forwarding services to the importers M/s Ramesh & Company and M/s. Vipan & Company, the Noticee has no involvement with the said Shri Ashok Kumar Goel and Shri Vipan Garg (connected persons of the above firms) and was neither directly nor indirectly involved with the above alleged illegal import of R-22 Refrigerant Gas Cylinders in the subject Bs/LJBL/LON/FCL/20141 608 dated 27.06.2014 and B/LJB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have also been relied in the impugned Show-Cause Notice to propose penalty on the Noticee to cull out true and correct facts of the case Noticee further submits that cross- examination is a justiciable right and any order passed without granting cross-examination render the order illegal in view of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxman Exports Vs. CCE - 2002(143) ELT 21 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal in the matters of M/s Raklhi Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2001(129) ELT 701 (Tn.), Kedia Overseas Vs. CC -- 2005 (179) ELT 156 and M/s Daisu Auto Parts Vs. CC. (ix) In the conspectus of submission supra. Your Honour may appreciate that except for the inculpatory statements; there is no allegation much less any evidence in the entire Show Cause Notice that the Noticee was aware of the presence of the R-22 Gas in the subject Bs/E. The Noticee therefore submits that he was neither aware nor was party to the alleged misdeclaration and therefore bringing the Noticee within the fold of Section 112(a) is patently wrong and misconceived and is not liable for penalty under Section 11 2(a)(i) of the Customs Act,1962. (x) Qua the allegation that the Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Ramesh and Company, if any, who had mis-declared the goods in the Bs/E. Section 112 of the Customs Act.1962 read as under SECTION 112. .... (xiii) Secondly, even charge of abetting can not be levelled against the Noticee to attract penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Noticee submits that the definition of abetment contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code applies to all Central Acts in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, hence, the words 'abets in doing' used in Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 are required to be construed in the same sense and given the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code. Relevant part of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced for quick reference: "107 - .... To aid in commission of the crime is the gist of the offence of abetment whereas in the present case neither the Noticee has connived or conspired with the importers prior to the import or at the time of import nor the Noticee was aware of the importers intention, or had derive or would derive any pecuniary gain out of the alleged intended mis-declaration which could entail a cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He has not admitted anything in the potion of the statement recorded on 09.12.2014 and on the morning of 10.12.2014 he admits every statement made against him without a murmur and goes on to the extent of stating the paras of the statements made by the others, inculpating him to be arrested and produced before the ACJM. Interestingly the statement of Appellant 2 and Appellant 3 recorded on 10.12.2014 was shown to him on 09.12.2014. He retracted the statements made immediately on 10.12.2014 before the ACJM. Impugned order relies solely upon this statement to hold against him and impose the penalty under Section 112 (a) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.11 Appellant 3 was examined twice by the DRI. In his statement recorded on 15.07.2014 nothing inculpatory is coming stated and in the statement recorded on 09.12.2014 he admits everything without any reference to the any other evidence. He retracted the statement on the first available opportunity before the ACJM after being arrested on 10.12.2014. It is interesting to note on 10.12.2014 he makes the statement inculpating his own employee - Appellant 4 without any question in the matter. Impugned order relies solely upon this stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the authorities prescribed therein. Even the salutory principles of mens rea and actus reus in a proceeding under the Act may not be held to be applicable. It is now a well settled principle that presumption of innocence as contained in Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a human right although per se it may not be treated to be a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 34. A person accused of commission of an offence is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the confession is voluntary in nature and not obtained as an outcome of threat, etc. if the same is to be relied upon solely for the purpose of securing a conviction. With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumstances under which he was forced to give a confessional statement. Mr. Aggarwala sought to distinguish the decision in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab - 2008 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 135 as being made in the context of the NDPS Act. As regards the decisions in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India - JT 2009 (1) SC 1 = 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Bal Mukund - 2009 (2) JCC (Narcotics) 76, Mr. Aggarwala submitted that they were distinguishable on facts. Mr. Aggarwala placed reliance on the decision in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, 2008 (1) JCC (Narcotics) 23. 10. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that at the very first instance when the respondent was produced before the learned ACMM, he submitted an application, in which, inter alia, he stated that he had been subjected to third degree methods by the DRI. He stated that the so called confessional statement of his was neither voluntarily nor truthful. He stated that he had been illegally detained by the DRI for about 48 hours and forced to sign blank papers. There is an endorsement on the said application by learned ACMM which forms part of the judicial record. Further, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant 1 and Appellant 2 are partly allowed as indicated in para 4.14 above. 5.2 Appeals of Appellant 3 & Appellant 4 are allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 Statement of Bhavesh Thacker, age 43 years, S/o Shri Jethmal Thacker, R/o B-51, Navkunj Apartments, I.P. Extension, Near Mother Dairy, New Delhi-1100 Dairy. New Delhi-110091 (Current address) and Permanent resident Mumbling No. 4, Geeta Arcade, Mira Road (East), Thane, bscriber of Airtel Mobile No 9810049590 (Delhi) and Reliance Mobile No. 09833149590 (Mumbai) tendered oble No. 09833149590 (Mumbai 1 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 15.07.2014. I have appeare 15.07 pedre before you in pursuance of summons dated 15.07.2014 issued under Section 108 of the customs Act. 1962. I have 8 of the customs Act, 1962. I have been explained the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and I have understand a 108 of the Customs Act hernan have understood the same. I further Understand me any other person whether here in or not during the department proceedings or in any court of law. I further understand that I have statement of mine can be used a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Mumbai - 400000 in my absence. They have two sons. Eldest son has done his MB and is working for a company. and is married and stays with his parents. The other son is a Dentist parentin the other son is a Dentist by profession. My other sister is My second brother in denenienam. Both my sisters are housewives. My second brother in law deals in silver gift items. They have one sor and is studying engineering from Ahmedabad. Q.2 Run us through the work done by your Proprietary Firm i.e. M/s. oping Agency. Shyam Shipping Agency. A.2 I state in this regard that I run a Proprietary F Avam shipping Agency i Hopetym in the name of M/s. Shyam Shipping Agency which has two offices. My Mumbai office is located at 501, Takshila Commercial Complex, R.H.B. ne West), Mumbai - 400080 and Delhi office is located at TA-4 1st Floor, Main Jagdamba Road, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 110 019. My firm is a Freight Forwarder. My firm has 11 employees in Delhi office and 9 employees in Mumbai office. I or my employees get in touch with various importers. In case my services, I refer the m importer wishes to engage my services, I refer the matter to Sh Ramnish Kapoor, Customs House Broker( ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Premier Cargo Movers in respect of Delhi and Mumbai operations and is handed over to the designated nsporter by the 'G' Card holder of M/s. Premier Cargo Movers. My employee, after clearance of the goods and receipt o empty container from the concerned importer, c corte prime concemed importer, collects all receipts pertaining to (1) Delivery order charges applicable only in cases where there is damage to the container or when the empty container is kept beyond the permissible limit (2) Terminal Handling Charges (THC) (3) Ground rent applicable only after the expiry of free days. After collecting all the receipts I or my employee raise the bill on the importer. The bill includes receipts as above on actual basis along with my agency charges @ Rs. 4000/- per container. This is equally is applicable to Mumbai operations. Once the payments are received from the importer the accounts are settled. r. 19 Q.3 What is the relation between you and Sh. Ramnish Kapoor, CHB? A.3 I have only business relationship with Sh. Ramnish Kapoor, CHB ar 2000 and got I met him in ICD, Tughlakabad sometime in the year 2000 and got ar employment and subsequently became a 'G' card holder in M/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ICD Loni, Ghaziabad and ICD, Dadri, Noida are their transporters. Q.7 Do you know Sh. Mukesh Thacker? A.7 I know Sh. Mukesh Thacker. He is my employee and looks after my work in my absence. I do not pay him any fi ver im any fixed salary but pay him in lumpsum. Another employee by the name of Ms. Rajini Sharma also looks after the work of the firm. Both Sh. Mukesh Thacker and Ms. Rajini Sharma co-ordinate with each other for the Ms. kojihi sharm smooth running of the business. Ms. Rajini Sharma is paid Rs. 17,000/- as salary on a monthly basis. Q.8 What is exact role of Sh. Mukesh Thacker in your firm? A.8 Sh. Mukesh Thacker is known to me for the past 15 years. He scrutinises all the documents received from the importer by e-mail o Des di tre documents ie courier and after proper scrutiny deputes my employee for obtaining Delivery Order. All the office work including laisioning with importers raising of bills, collection of payments etc. is done by him exclusively. I always remain in touch with him on his mobile no. 9810013431 and office no. 011-29993762. Ms. Rajini Sharma is a receptionist. In addition to the above she coordinates with shipping line and procure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mukesh Thacker my employee contacted the employee of Shri Vipan Garg. The employee informed Sh. Mukesh Thacker that Sh. Vipan Garg is likely to office en De Mukesh Thacker that s likely to visit DR office on Wednesday i.e. 16.07.2014. In respect of Sh. Ashok Kuma Goyal I or Sh. Mukesh Thacker have no information. I am tired now and I undertake to app ertake to appear before yourself on 16.07.2014 without issue of any summons along with Ms. Rajin Sharma my employee at 11.30 a.m. positively. This is my true, correct and voluntary statement tendered without any fear, duress, threat or favour or pressure and has been typed by Sh. S.K. Bhalla, I.O., DRI (Hqrs.), New Delhi as dictated by me. I have signed from page 1 to 7 in token of having been typed correctly and as dictated by me. by me:" 15/071 BHAVESH THACKE Prostor M/S SHYAM SHIPPING AGE MOBILENO 9810049590 Before me 08/07/14 Document 2 Statement of Bhavesh Thacker ·(also written as Thakker), age 43 years, S/o Shri Jethmal Thacker, R/o B-51, Navkunj Apartments, I.P. Extension, Near Mother Dairy, New Delhi - 110091 (Current address) and Permanent resident of 603, Building No. 4, Geeta Arcade, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussion, the procedure of import of R-22 gas cylinder in India and other financial matter was also discussed. Since there is strict restriction of R-22 gas cylinders in India, without license from DGFT it was decided that - R-22 gas cylinders will be imported alongwith HMS which is being regularly imported by M/s Ramesh & Co. Shri Kamlesh told the manner how it is to be imported along with HMS. Shri Kamlesh suggested that M/s Ramesh & Co. being importer of HMS since long in some of the containers R-22 gas cylinders could be concealed in the back side of the container by loading R-22 gas cylinders in the container first, putting an artificial partition after the R-22 gas cylinders and then load the containers with HMS, so that in case the container is opened by Indian Customs the R-22 gas cylinders will not be noticed by them because of the artificial partition between HMS and R-22 gas cylinders. Shri Ashok Kumar agreed to the proposal, however he expressed that he needs a good share from the profit, as he will be in trouble in case he is Rs. caught. The financial investment and role of each of us were also discussed and finalized in the meeting. It was decided that Shri Ashok Sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 Noted. As Directed above I will Appear before you ou 10/12/14 Day 09/12/14 09/12/14 Statement in continuation of Page 3 of my Statement As directed, I appear before you today i.e. 10.12.2014 after taking adequate rest/sleep, to tender my further statement. On being asked further how I would have cleared the containers containing R-22 gas cylinders from ICD, Loni. I state that clearance of goods at ICD, Loni, is being looked after by Shri Mukesh Thakkar. Normally the containers of HMS are not examined 100% by offloading the HMS. Further, in case the Customs Officer would open the container, they could not have found the R-22 gas cylinders as the same were concealed behind the HMS as stated above. I told Shri Mukesh Thakkar, about the seized containers that, there are some problems in the containers because these containers contained R-22 gas cylinders at the back side. Shri Mukesh Thakkar was aware about the concealment of R- 22 gas cylinders which were seized by DRI and I told him that I will give him some extra money after clearance. Shri Mukesh Thakkar agreed to take care of clearance and handing over the containers containing R-22 gas cylinders to the pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gency during a particular month and other factors like my extra devotion in my work entrusted by Sh. Bhavesh Thakker. In this regard, I have been shown the following statements tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (i) Statement of Sh. Bhavesh Thakker dated 15.07.2014. (ii) Statement of Ms. Rajni Sharma, Receptionist-cum- Customer Service Executive of M/s Shyam Shipping Agency, New Delhi dated 16.07.2014. (iii) Statement of Sh. Vipan Garg of M/s Vipan & Co. dated 21.07.2014. (iv) Statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Goyal dated 28.07.2014. Statement of Sh. Vipan Garg dated 09/10.12.2014 (v) (vi) Statement of Sh. Bhavesh Thakker dated 09/10.12.2014. 0/12/2014 Gewkech 09/12/2014 SOZ 1 -2- On my request Shri Avinash Kumar Sinha, Sr. Tax Assistant, DRI, read the above statements and explained to me in Hindi. On being asked whether I agree with my role and concern regarding the clearance of goods including the goods imported by M/s Ramesh & Co. and M/s Vipan & Co. and the goods, seized by DRI mentioned in above statement, I request you to allow me some time to think and recollect the actual fact so that I can give my true statement. I may the....