TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the present case is that, certain information was received by the Customs Department, based on which, an alert was issued regarding two containers bearing Bill of Lading No. HKGA27483500, dated 3rd December, 2021 and five containers bearing Bill of Lading No. HKGA89775100, dated 3rd December, 2021. 5. The said information revealed that an importer, namely M/s Jyoti Enterprises, was attempting to clear goods from various locations, by resorting to misdeclaration and concealment. 6. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, (hereinafter, 'SIIB'), Inland Container Depot (hereinafter, 'ICD'), Patparganj and other ICDs, as also the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, 'DRI'), Delhi Zonal Unit had also communicated that M/s Jyoti Enterprises was a sensitive importer. Alert is stated to have been raised in the system, in respect of M/s Jyoti Enterprises, and it was seen that five containers bearing Bill of Lading No. HKGA89775100, dated 3rd December, 2021 were declared as 'ammonium sulphate', bearing HS Code 31022100. However, upon inspection, it was revealed that the same were consisting of 'poppy seeds' and 'areca nuts'. 7. Initially, these containers we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... response to summons dated 22.08.2022, Sh. Manish Sharma appeared before Customs to tender his statement and stated that initially he was instructed by Ms. Tracy through Hardev to contact Sh Manish Priyadarshi, advocate at his office in Bhogal, Delhi and sign some documents; that he received the copy of Power of Attorney from Ms Meadows International Co. in the first week of February-2022 i.e. around 4th or 5th February-2022 via DHL courier; that he has not received any documents, except for the Power* of Attorney, from the company i.e. M/s Meadows International Co.; that he has not provided any document to Sh. Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate except the Power of Attorney; that he has just signed the documents, required for filing of application and Writ Petition, on the advice of Sh. Manish Priyadarshi, Advocate; that these documents were prepared by Sh. Manish Priyadarshi only and the same were in his possession only; that despite he being the Authorized Representative of company i.e. M/s Meadows International Co. and also being Power of Attorney holder, Sh. Manish Priyadarshi, Advocate has never appraised him about the case nor he has sought his advice/directions for any past or pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yee of company i.e. M/s Meadows International Co. (collectively RUD-8). 25.1 Sh. Manish Sharma, R/o Flat No. 102, Shubh Apartment-20, Saket Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh with no past *record of employment or any association with the shipper based in Hong Kong was neither aware of the functioning of the company nor of the facts of the case. It was quite evident that Sh. Manish Sharma was merely signing on the dotted line upon the instructions of the advocate and the operator working from behind the scene. 25.2 Sh. Manish Sharma by way of acting on behalf of the operator/shipper without any legal without being aware or in possession of any information of concealment of the said shipment prior to his date of appointment as authorized representative has acted on the instructions of the shipper and produced false claims of mis-routed shipment & has intentionally made incorrect declaration & therefore is liable for penalty under Section 114AA and 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 25.3 Further, M/s Meadows International Co has not submitted any document in their support which may prove that the shipment exported by them was not intentionally sent to the said shipper. By....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erishable commodity. (vi) Thereafter, summons were again issued on 28th April, 2022. However, none of the noticees arrived to tender their statements. Ms. Manish Sharma tendered his statement through an email stating that he had never heard or dealt with the companies M/s Jyoti Enterprises and M/s. Meadows International Co. (vii) Pursuant to that, during the course of investigation, Mr. Manish Sharma submitted that he was told by Ms. Tracy, through Mr. Hardev to contact Ms. Priyadarshi Manish and sign documents prepared by her. He had only received Power of Attorney from M/s Meadows International Co. and had no other communication with the company. Moreover, it was submitted that he signed documents for certain applications and a writ petition concerning M/s Meadows International Co, solely on Ms. Priyadarshi Manish's instructions and was never informed about the case details pertaining to M/s Meadows International Co. (viii) Further, he submitted that he had no knowledge about the M/s Meadows International Cos' operations, purchase orders, Bills of Lading, and the importer M/s Jyoti Enterprises, as also its past consignments, company directors, procedure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in bags used to conceal the Poppy Seeds and Areca attempted to be imported vide Bill of Lading No. HDMUHKGA897751 00 dated 03.12.2021 at ICD Sonepat and Bill of Lading No. HDMUHKGA27483500 dated 03.12.2021 at ICD Patli under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. iv. I impose a penalty of Rs.6,80,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Eighty Lakhs Only) on the importer i.e. M/s Jyoti Enterprises under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. v. I impose a penalty of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Only) on Sh. Hemant Jha, Proprietor of M/s Jyoti Enterprises under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. vi. I impose a penalty of Rs. Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Only) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Sh. Manish Sharma, authorized representative of M/s Meadows International Co., PO Box 98974, Tdim Sha Tsui Post Office, Hong Kong. vii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Only) under Section 117 of the Customs Act,1962 on Sh. Manish Sharma, authorized representative of M/s Meadows International Co., PO Box 98974, Tdim Sha Tsui Post Office, Hong Kong." 17. A perusal of the impugned Order-in-Original woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....now insist that the goods be warehoused with M/s Adani Logistics Park. This is evident from the letter dated 07.12.2022 addressed to the warehoused M/s Adani Logistics Park. A copy of another letter indicating the above was also addressed to the authorised representative of the petitioner. 11. We express our displeasure on a manner in which the respondents have proceeded. There has been no clarity on the part of the concerned officer of the respondents in regard to warehousing the goods in question. In the event, the concerned officer wanted the goods to be shifted to the particular warehouse - which is apparent from the communications as noted above - the least the concerned officer could have done was to inform the petitioner in this regard. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as per the information available with the petitioner M/s Adani Logistics Park is not in a position to warehouse the goods in question. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it apposite to direct the respondents to make arrangements for warehousing the goods with M/s Adani Logistics Park as desired by it. If the respondents are unable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claims to have no knowledge of the case. Only the advocate who filed the writ petition appears to have had knowledge of the case. The entire matter required a deeper probe, after which the Petitioner has been found to be complicit. There appears to be clandestine import of goods like poppy seeds and areca nuts after indulging in misdeclaration. Hence, various facts would have to be gone into. 10. Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain a writ petition. The Petitioner is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law against the Order-in-Original by way of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the requisite pre-deposit. 23. In terms of the above order concerning M/s Jyoti Enterprises, the Court had observed that in W.P.(C) 5038/2022 concerning M/s Meadows International Co, material facts had not been fully disclosed, and relief with reference to warehousing of goods had been obtained based on incomplete disclosure to the Court. 24. Notably, there has been gross concealment by Petitioner-Mr. Manish Sharma in the filing of the present petition, and not enclosing the order in W.P.(C) ....