TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Invoice (i.e. flasks) from 39263033 to 96170019, raising the unit price of the flasks from USD 2.75 to USD 5 and raising the unit price of the item No. 2 (i.e. Pampers) from USD 5 to USD 6. However, no reply to the query was received and neither the goods were assessed nor duty was paid, nor goods were examined; no out of charge (pass out of Customs control under Section 47 of the Act) was given in respect of the impugned consignment when the consignments were intercepted by DRI, KZU. 2.1. In respect of the impugned consignment, a Panchnama was drawn on 07.06.2017 and as against the declared description of 16 Pcs Flasks priced at USD 2.75 per piece and 600 Pkt baby Pampers priced at USD 5 per Pkt in 40 master cartons of declared value of Rs. 2,42,893/-, the inventory revealed goods to be mis-declared. Out of total 40 cartons, 32 cartons were found to contain 5,04,000 pieces of 85 cm (King size) sticks Indonesian cigarettes of "Gudang Garam" brand and the rest eight (8) cartons contained 8753 pcs of baby diapers and 16 flasks which were aggregately valued at Rs.51,31,209/-. The said goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act and the copy of the seizure list and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the penalties imposed on the appellant, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 112(a) of the Act had been wrongly invoked against the appellant herein as he neither did nor did he omit to do, any act which rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation nor did he abet the doing or omission of any such act. In this regard, it is pointed out that the impugned order does not reveal any such act of abetment on his part save and except insinuation. 3.2. Further, the appellant submitted that Section 112(b) of the Act had been wrongly invoked against him inasmuch as neither he acquired possession nor was in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any manner dealing with subject goods. 3.3. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case, wherein this Tribunal has set aside similar penalties imposed on the appellant, vide Final Order No. 76182 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025. 3.4. Thus, it is the submission of the appellant that Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act had no appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a person who could handle the job of clearance of the mis-declared consignments and in the process searched out Nasiruddin. He introduced Nasiruddin with a number of such importers/brokers who intended to bring in the mis-declared goods at the instance of Navneet Kumar. He also allowed his office machinery to be used by Shri Nasiruddin to receive the mails from the importer and especially from Late Mayur Mehta and Monika Vora wherefrom it was crystal clear that the goods were grossly mis-declared and also facilitated the clearance of such goods through Customs. Sri Sajal Das being a man in the business of Customs Broker, knew quite well that he was going to facilitate a conspiracy to bring in mis-declared/contraband goods which are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and thereby he rendered himself liable for penalty under Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it appears that Shri Sajal Das had rendered himself liable for penal action under Section 112(a), and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his act of omission and commission." 6.2. From the above, although I find that the allegation of the Department is that the appellant has facilitated clearance of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged Custom Broker Nasir Uddin to number of importers. The allegation in the Notice reveals that DC Shri. Navneet Kumar connived with various brokers to mis-declare and import the said goods. We observe that there is no evidence brought on record to substantiate the allegation that the appellant has introduced the customs brokers to the DC Shri. Navneet Kumar. Even if it is accepted that the appellant has introduced some customs brokers to the DC, it cannot automatically lead to the allegation that the appellant has connived to mis declare the goods imported. Thus, we observe that the findings in the impugned order by the Ld. adjudicating authority is only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without any evidence to support it. 6.3. Another evidence adduced in the notice is the alleged deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- by Pasific Enterprises to the account of Nirmala Bala Trading firm related to the appellant. From the records, we find that M/s. Nirmala Bala Trading Co. is a proprietorship firm of Chandan Das, who is the brother of the appellant. The said firm is in the business of dealing in DEPB scrips and has no relation with the appellant's business. The appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and clearance of any of the consignments of the importers. Thus, we hold that the appellant has not fulfilled any of the conditions required for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) (i) of the Customs Act. 1962 and hence, we hold that penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(a) (i) is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 6.7. Section 112(b) of the Act provides for imposition of penalty for importation of goods by any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods, which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. We observe that there is no material evidence available on record to establish that the appellant is concerned with any of the acts mentioned in the said section, which make the imported goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The penalty under this section cannot be imposed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant has not fulfilled any of the conditions required for imposition ....