TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., Shop No. 12, Ellora Plaza, 3rd Floor, Near Railway Station, Indore-452001 with the manifest mentioning the goods as "Footwear & Fabric" was intercepted by Hongkong Customs and on examination it was found to contain Electroshock batons, knuckle dusters and suspected counterfeit personal care products. The goods were therefore seized by Hongkong Customs, investigations were taken up by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unt, Mumbai. The investigations made by DRI revealed that during the period from December 2011 to May 2013, Kirit Shrimankar had caused import of as many as 179 consignments in the names of various IEC holders (16 in number). 3. During the investigations statements of four IEC holders, who were found existing, including the present appellant were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appellant stated that he was a man of meager means, but had floated firm and obtained IEC in the name of the firm at behest of others. He stated that he had merely lent the name and IEC of his firm for monetary consideration and that he had got nothing to do with the goods imported in the name of his firm. He had neither placed orders for these good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame reason of arrangement being lucrative appellant through Shri Ankit Mehta (CHA) got another Import Export Code in the name of his employee Shri Ram Mehra as proprietor of M/s. Dhruv Enterprise. This was also done as per suggestion of Shri Sanjay Kundra. Appellant did receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Shri Kirit Shivmankar (from Shri Sanjay Kundra's office, out of which a sum of Rs.7,500/- was given to the said employee, Shri Ram Mehra. It is further submitted that the, appellant never signed any document, nor placed any order to import any goods. He was absolutely ignorant about the consignments imported under his IEC. There are no allegations that this appellant was involved directly or indirectly in the fraudulent imports mad by Shri Kirit Shrimankar. The penalty of Rs.25 lakhs is imposed upon the appellant only for having allowed use of Import Export Code for consideration and thus is highly disproportionate. It is rather liable to be set aside for the above mentioned reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Carmel Exports and Imports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported as 2012 (276) ELT 505 (Ker.) (ii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d after perusing the records and the decisions relied upon by both the parties, it is observed and held as follows: 11. Present is a case of proxy import of goods in the name of dummy IEC by resorting to mis-declaration of description and value leading to evasion of customs duty to the tune of Rs.64.44 crores during the period from December 2011 to May 2013. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that a syndicate with Shri Kirit Shrimankar as the master mind involving various others namely Shri Manjit Singh Sandhu, Shri Raju Dubey (Transporter), Ankit Mehta (CHA), Shri Sandeep Sharma, Sanjay Kundra (freight forwarder) and even the customs officer Shri S. Chattaraj had been active behind such evasions. It is also the fact on record that the said syndicate has used 16 Import Export Codes for committing the alleged act of misdeclaration out of which 12 IEC holders were found non-existent. The appellant is one among 4 who could be traced by the officers of Department of Revenue Intelligence while investigating the alleged misdeclaration. The decision relied upon by the department is with respect to an appeal filed by said Shri S. Chattaraj against the imposition of penalty upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xport Code to Shri Kirit Shrimankar. The said IEC has been used by said Shri Kirit Shrimankar and his syndicate for committing such acts/omissions which have rendered the imported goods liable to be confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Admissions are the best evidences which need no further proof. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1952 SC 214, wherein it was held that the conventional statement of the accused if found to be voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction. The Hon'ble Court elaborated that even if such statement is retracted, the court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or coercion and whether the confession is truthful. If found to be voluntary and truthful, inculpatory portion of retracted confession could be relied upon to base the conviction. In the present case apparently and admittedly there is no retraction of his statement by the appellant. The statement is clear admission for lending the Import Export Code of the appellant and of the firm in the name of his employees by him to Shri Kirit Shrimankar. This was admittedly at the instance of freight forwarder....