TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd and M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly indulged in making fraudulent outward foreign exchange remittance using fake/duplicate bills of entries fabricated on the basis of genuine bills of entry. 3. Briefly, the facts are as under:- i. The Petitioner acted as a Customs broker on behalf of SCDPL, who was the importer of diamonds. The Petitioner complied with the KYC norms and ascertained the authenticity of the importers through the website of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Importer also provided his Importer- Exporter Certificate (IEC) bearing No. 5211000731. ii. After verifying the genuineness of the Importer on the basis of the KYC documents, the Petitioner cleared six import consignments of rough polished diamonds for SCDPL on 14th May 2013 and 15th May 2013. iii. As stated above, on the basis of the intelligence received by the Customs Department, the officers of the Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive Wing, Mumbai conducted search and seizure actions at the various premises of the importers including SCDPL. iv. Statements of various persons connected with the said import including that of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Re-2013) 12009-2014 dated 16.09.2013 and Section 46 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also admitted that he was aware that the persons' to whom he had delivered the imported goods (diamonds) on authority letter were not the actual IEC holder. I find that he willingly and wilfully abetted with Shri Rajesh Jain @ Rajesh Kothari in the mis-use and misdeclaration of the name of importer and IEC in impugned 06 Bills of Entry. 62.2) I find that by the above act of allowing to mis-use the name & IEC of SCDPL as "Importer", Shri Nandkumar R Pawar abetted with Shri Rajesh Jai Bhesh Kothari's acts of mis-use/misdeclaration of the name of importer as "SCDPL" and IEC as 5211000731 and contravened the regulations of DGFT circular No. 6 (Re-2013) 12009-2014 dated 16.09.2013 and Section 46 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 rendering the imported goods viz. diamonds, covered under impugned 06 Bills of Entry of SCDPL handled by him (nandkumar), rendering the 16131.09 CTS of Diamonds totally valued at Rs. 31,50,88,552/- (Rupees Thirty One Crore Fifty Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only) covered under impugned 06 Bills of Entry of SCDPL handled by him (Nandkumar), liabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest. 114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material.- If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods." (emphasis supplied) 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the provisions of Section 112(a) and (b) apply to any person who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such acts; Further, Section 112(b) makes any person li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etracted on an earlier occasion and only on the basis of bills of entry, Respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion in the impugned order that the Petitioner willingly and willfully abetted one Mr. Rajesh Jain @ Rajesh Kothari in the misuse and mis-declaration of the name of importer and IEC in the impugned six bills of entry. Further, the impugned order does not even give a finding as to what was the role played by the Petitioner in the entire transaction and also does not give any details as to what was the false declaration made by the Petitioner to attract the provisions of Sections 112 (a) and (b) and 114AA of the Act. There is also no finding regarding the value of the goods which the Petitioner allegedly sought to mis-declare thereby rendering him liable for such a steep and humongous penalty. It is therefore our view that Respondent No. 2 had no substantive reason so that a reasoned and speaking order could be passed against the Petitioner which could have crystallized the role of the Petitioner. This would render the impugned order liable to be quashed and set aside. The relevant paragraphs dealing with the role of the Petitioner in the impugned order is reproduced below:....