TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such intelligence, investigations were initiated by DRI against the importer, the Customs House Agent ("CHA"), Customs Officers and some other parties (hereinafter referred to as the "co-noticees") who were believed to be assisting the illegal import. During the course of investigation, summons were issued and statements were recorded from various persons. 3. Mr. Arnab Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"), one of the Co-Noticee, is the Director of M/s. NAF Logistics Private Limited ("NLPL" for short). During the relevant period, NLPL was engaged as the freight forwarder for certain consignments imported by one Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Sri Ram Traders (hereinafter referred to as the "importer"). Mr. Arnab Sinha and his mother, namely, Smt. Mohua Sinha were also the Directors of M/s. Zhenda Foreign Trade HK Limited ("ZFTL/overseas supplier"). 4. During the course of investigations conducted, the premises of the appellant was searched on 23rd October, 2017 and statements of the appellant were also recorded. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2017 was issued, proposing confiscation of the goods imported under Bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and co-noticees, without any corroborative cogent evidence. It is a settled law that such statements, in absence of any corroborative evidence, cannot form the sole basis for convicting the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Suresh Maruti Patil Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata [2025 (5) TMI 663]. Moreover, the retracted statements of the Appellant having been obtained by the Department under duress and coercion do not hold any evidentiary value and as such cannot be relied. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Moni [2010 (252) E.L.T. 57]and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jeen Bhavani International Vs. Commissioner [(2023) 6 Centax 11 (Tri. - Mum)] [Affirmed in SC - (2023) 6 Centax 14]. (ii) Even otherwise, the statements relied upon by the Ld. adjudicating authority holds no evidentiary value as the procedure prescribed under Section 138B of the Customs Act have not been complied with. It is a settled law that statement of witness recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be admitted as evidence unless the person making the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....K Limited ii. Carrier on export side - Ship Air Express (HK Limited) iii. Importer - Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh and Badshah (alleged actual importer) iv. Customs House Agent (CHA) - M/s. Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd represented by Shri Aloke Ghosh (ii) The role of the appellant was limited solely to acting as the Indian counterpart of the overseas carrier and nothing beyond. The Appellant had no connection whatsoever with the procurement, shipment, importation, or clearance of the goods in question. Therefore, during the relevant period, the appellant was neither responsible nor associated with the state of affairs of the overseas supplier and hence no malafide can be attributed to the Appellant for the impugned consignments. (iii) In so far as the allegation of receipt of remittances by the overseas supplier through channels other than banking is concerned, the appellant submits that being completely unaware of the affairs of the company for the said period, non-receipt of proceeds through formal banking channels cannot be attributed to the appellant in absence of any corroborative evidence. Further, during the period the appellant was the Director of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a)], nor can it be alleged that he knew or had reasons to believe that the imported goods were liable for confiscation [Section 112(b)]. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is wholly unwarranted and bad in law. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Vaz Forwarding Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2000 (118) E.L.T. 724 (Tri. Cal.)]. (ii) In any event, the provisions of Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) are mutually exclusive and cannot be applied simultaneously as held by the Tribunal in the case of Ashok T. Sadrangani Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai [2018 (363) E.L.T. 889].Similarly, the provisions of Section 114AA and Section 112(a) are also mutually exclusive and cannot be applied simultaneously. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of S.M. Taufeek Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - IV [2017 (358) E.L.T. 326 (Tri. - Chennai)]. (iii) Further, the appellant submits that penalty under Section 114AA is imposable only in those situations where export benefits are claimed without exporting the goods and by pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sections 112 and 114AA cannot be imposed in absence of malafide on the part of the appellant, such as in: • P.N. Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva - I [2019 (369) E.L.T. 1560 (Tri. - Mum.) ] • Commissioner of Customs Vs. Trinetra Impex Private Limited [2020 (372) E.L.T. 332 (Del.)] D. The appellant cannot be assumed to be the Beneficial Owner of the consignment imported vide AWB No. 21715543404 dated 05 June 2017 (i) It is submitted that the impugned notice itself states that the consignee/buyer for the said consignments was Sri Ram Traders. Therefore, the observation of the Ld. adjudicating authority that the appellant was the beneficial owner of the said imports is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. Such an observation has been rendered against the appellant merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Solomon Selvaraj Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs [(2023) 13 Centax 118]. (ii) Even assuming, though without admitting that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the said goods, mis-declaration cannot be al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the conduct of the person is deliberate, contumacious, or with knowledge of violation. Applying this principle, the appellant, who had no role in planning or executing the alleged modus operandi and acted only as a freight forwarder, cannot justifiably be subjected to a penalty that is fifteen times higher than that imposed on the alleged mastermind. Such imposition is not only excessive but also contrary to the doctrine of proportionality. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs [2025 (8) TMI 1573 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. (iii) Thus, even if it assumed but not admitted that the appellant had the knowledge of the goods and abetted in mis-declaration of the same, the penalty imposed cannot be more than the penalty upon the alleged principal offender. Hence, the penalty upon the appellant deserves to be set aside, or at the very least, reduced substantially. 9.1. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prays for dropping the penalties imposed on the appellant vide the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Entry No. 9948804 dated 03.06.2017 were actually brought by Navneet Kumar, DC; if there is any duty liability on these consignments, the duty is to be paid by the actual importers. We observe that it has also been admitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh in his statements that he had lent his IEC to Badshah and Navneet Kumar for easy money. Thus, the statements of Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh clearly indicate that the goods mentioned in the said two Bills of Entry were not imported by the appellant, Mr. Arnab Sinha. 12.2.1. Further, in respect of the third consignment under Airway Bill No. 21715543404, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh has stated that the same were "in the name of his firm Sri Ram Traders". 12.3. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the appellant herein had nothing to do with the goods imported in the above said consignments. 12.4. We find that the role of the appellant as a Freight Forwarder was limited solely to acting as the Indian counterpart of the overseas carrier and nothing beyond. The appellant had no connection whatsoever with the procurement, shipment, importation, or clearance of the goods in question. In the impugned order, it has been alleged that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... overseas supplier when the alleged import took place. Thus, we find merit in the submission of the appellant that he was completely unaware of the affairs of the company for the said period. Hence, we are of the opinion that non-receipt of proceeds through formal banking channels cannot be attributed to the appellant in absence of any corroborative evidence. Further, the appellant has submitted that during the period when he was the Director of the overseas supplier, there was an active bank account in the name of ZFTL. In this regard, we have found that the ld. adjudicating authority has not given any finding contrary to this claim made by the appellant. It is also observed that the Revenue has failed to establish the receipt of any amount by the appellant other than the freight forwarding charges. Thus, we hold that the allegation of receipt of remittance through other than banking channels under the directorship of the appellant is totally based on assumptions and presumptions and the said claim of the Revenue is not supported by any evidence. 13.1. Thus, we hold that the appellant cannot be implicated in the offence on the above ground. 14. Regarding the penalties impose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contents of the packages. Further, the appellant did not have any direct communication with the customs officers or the other alleged perpetrators of the modus operandi as evident from the call records produced in the impugned notice. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be said to have abetted any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation. Thus, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act is found to be legally unsustainable and hence, the same is set aside. 14.4. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is worthwhile to note that the penalty under this section is imposable only when it is established that the appellant has abetted the mis-declaration of the imported goods knowingly well that the said imported goods were liable for confiscation. However, we find that the appellant was only a freight forwarder. He was neither the supplier, nor the carrier, nor the importer, nor the CHA. The investigation has not brought in any evidence against the appellant regarding his involvement in the alleged mis-declaration. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty imposed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the above findings, we hold that of penalties of Rs.50,00,000/- each imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, are not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. Thus, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2025) ============= Document 1 | 77% Filed 更改公å¸ç§˜æ›¸åŠè‘£äº‹é€šçŸ¥æ›¸(委任/åœä»») Notice of Change of Company Secretary and Director (Appointment/Cessation) EXHIBIT G panies Registry è¡¨æ ¼ 409 Form ND2A 2 5 MM Company Number 1663953 1 å…¬å¸å稱 Company Name ZHENDA FOREIGN TRADE (HK) LIMITED 2 å…¬å¸ç§˜å¯†/董事的åœä»» Cessation to Act as Company Secretary/Director A. VỊ BỊ TE 2 VỊ HE F 1 32 12 19 17 17 Particulars Currently Registered with the Companies Registry Director O å…¬å¸åƒæ›¸ 候補葉市 Atemate Director FC ff Alternate to Capacity Company Socrotary (Nil) å…¬å¸ç....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etary/Director (Natural Person) ä¸æ–‡å§“å Name In Chinese (NiI) 英文姓å SINHA Name In English 67 Mohua Other Names O 29E9 Identification (NH) M0684164 TARDEKA Hong Kong kienitty Card Number Passport Number 1& OR O å…¬å¸ç§˜æ›¸/董事的評價(法人圖鑑) Particulars of Company Secretary/Director (Body Corporate) ä¸æ–‡åŠè‹±æ–‡å制 Chinese and English Names (Nil) B. 97 €E IT 17 Details of Cessation 去世 Deceased â– æ–™/其他 Resignation/Others åœä»»æž—製 Reason for Cessation O 2017 01 03 Date of Cessation IF YYYY 上越è±äº‹æ±‚候補望事在åœä»»æ—¥æœŸå¾Œ,是å¦ä»ç„¶å¾Œä»»å…¬å¸çš„候補就專家监事製ä½? Will this director or alternate director continue to hold office as alternate director or director In this company after the data of cessation? % No ET009 1/2014 (2014 lg 9 8) Specification No. 1/2014 (Man)....