TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& USB Cable etc. The said Bill of Entry was assessed to duty enhancing the value for 7 items and total duty of Rs. 87,472/- was debited through scrips against the assessable value of Rs. 3,95,947/-. 2.1. On interception and subsequent Pachamama drawn by DRI on 27.06.2017, the goods were found to have been grossly mis-declared in terms of description and quantity (as detailed in paragraph 2.1 and 3.1 of the impugned Show Cause Notice). As against the assessed value of Rs. 3,95,947/-, the total ascertained value of the consignment was assessed to be Rs.1,70,94,950/-. The goods imported under the said Bill of Entry were thus seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act 1962. 2.2. On completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice covering the impugned consignment was issued by the DRI on 02.12.2017, wherein the goods were sought to be confiscated under Sections 111 and Section 119 of the Act and penalty was sought to be imposed under Sections 112(a), Section 112(b) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 on all the noticees therein, including the appellant. 2.3. On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority has confiscated the impugned goods vide the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... falsely been implicated in this case. It is also stated that there is no allegation that the appellant has received or intended to receive any benefit either in cash or kind from the impugned goods or the importers, whereas there is ample evidence that all the noticees except the appellant had financial interest in the impugned importation. 3.3. Moreover, it is contended by the appellant that M/s. Nirmala Bala Trading Company is an independent Proprietorship firm and the appellant is in no way related with the transactions of the said firm, which used to deal with DEPB scrips and therefore, the transaction between M/s. Pacific Enterprise and M/s. Nirmala Bala Trading cannot be attributed to the appellant for imposition of penalty. 3.4. Regarding the penalties imposed on him, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 112(a) of the Act had been wrongly invoked against him as he neither did nor did he omit to do any act, which rendered the subject goods liable to confiscation nor did he abet the doing or omission of any such act; the impugned order does not reveal any such act of abetment on his part save and except insinuation. In respect of the penalty imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h goods in as much as he at the instance of Navneet Kumar, searched for a person who could handle the job of clearance of the mis-declared consignments and in the process located Nasiruddin. He introduced Nasiruddin with a number of such importers/brokers who intended to bring in the mis-declared goods in connivance with the DC 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 Ms. Swati Vora @ Monika Vora. He introduced Nasir to Shri Jatinder Singh Ahuja, knowing fully well that he would be importing mis-declared goods and contrabands. In fact, with the help of Nasir he allowed Shri Jatinder Singh Ahuja to avail the services of the syndicate to clear the mis-declared goods and as a result he would enjoy monetary benefit accruable to him being a partner in the conspiracy. It was very well known to him that the goods were grossly mis-declared and are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act 1962, yet he facilitated the clearance of such goods through Customs by arranging Nasiruddin to clear the goods for him by using the services of the syndicate. Further even the payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....band goods, without any evidence. Although it has been alleged that the appellant has conspired with the importer to bring in mis-declared/contraband goods which are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act,1962, I do not find any evidence to establish that the conditions laid down for invoking the provisions of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 have been satisfied in this case. Thus, I find that penalties cannot be imposed on the appellant under Sections 112 (a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.3. In this regard, I refer to the decision of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 76182 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 75621 of 2022, rendered in an identical set of facts where the adjudicating authority had imposed penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b) and 114AA on the appellant, whereby this Tribunal has set aside the penalties imposed. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant findings of the Tribunal in the said case are reproduced below: "6.2. From the allegations in the Notice, we observe that the allegation against the appellant is that he has introduced the alleged Custom Broker Nasir Uddin to number of importers. The allegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating authority under Section 138B of the Customs Act, which has not been done in the instant case. Hence, we hold that such statements cannot be relied upon against the appellant. In support of this view, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Junaid Kudia 2024 (16) CENTAX 504 (SC) - affirming Junaid Kudia Vs. CC [2024 (16) CENTAX 503 (T), wherein it has been held as under: 6.5. Thus, by relying on the decision cited supra, we observe that the said statements cannot be relied upon against the appellant, as there is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegations. 6.6. We observe that Section 112(a)(i) of the Act provides for imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods upon any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In the present case, we observe that the appellant has not filed the Bills of Entry for importation of the gods. We also find that the appellant had no role in the importation, filing of Bills of Entry, documentation, examination of the goods or....