TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bags of dry dates having declared assessable value of Rs.19,04,892/-. On 19.05.2021, the examination of the goods was conducted in the presence of Customs Broker and authorized representative of the importer, Sh. Jagjeet Singh (H-Card of M/s Mojos Impex International) and two independent witnesses and the officers of import shed. The examination proceedings were enumerated in the Panchnama dated 19.05.2021. b) During the examination, it was noticed that although the packing material was same for all the imported goods but there was stark difference in the shape of the bags placed at the front of the containers than those placed behind. Therefore, one such bag was fetched from behind the front four to five layers of bags and on opening the same, it was found to contain cartons of ESSE brand cigarettes. Accordingly, the containers were ordered to be completely de-stuffed for detailed examination of the imported goods and on complete de-stifling of the containers, a large quantity of cartons of cigarettes concealed behind the bags of dry dates were found. The packing material of both i.e. dry dates and cigarettes was the same, so as to hoodwink the Customs officers and smuggl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udhary remained evasive about most of the questions and kept beating around the bush, thereby concealing vital information relevant to the instant case indicating his involvement in the smuggling of cigarettes. (iv) That he tried to get the consignment cleared by visiting the ICD CONCOR on 18.05.2021, whereas, on that particular day or even several days prior to 18.05.2021, none of his consignments as importer were registered or marked for examination. (v) That it was his employee Sh. Bobby who had contacted the freight forwarder in Dubai, vide his email id [email protected] and his contact number 00919814600909, through some "BOTIM APP"; though he denied of having BOTIM APP on his phone but him contact details have been provided by the freight forwarder in their reply. It is enough to prove his involvement in the booking of containers. (vi) That when the department tried to investigate his role in the instant case, instead of cooperating in the investigation, he fled away and in the process of doing so, even tried to trample over an officer of Customs, with his car bearing registration no. PB-10-HQ-1434. Further, in the process he even took away all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was a business partner of Sh. Chander Shekhar and helped in the procurement of prohibited goods i.e. cigarettes and arranged for their import into India. The Respondent was also involved in financing the purchase and clearance of the goods while Sh. Chander Shekhar was responsible for selling the goods in India. 4.2 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that it has been come from the statement of Sh. Chander Shekhar that the Respondent provided five lakh rupees in cash to Sh. Chander Shekhar to help him abscond during the investigation and the Respondent also assured Sh. Chander Shekhar that he would manage the case through his contacts. The Respondent was in constant touch with Sh. Chander Shekhar during his period of abscondence which indicates his involvement in the smuggling operation. 4.3 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that the Respondent Sh. Sanjay Choudhary, during his statement on 22.02.2022, remained evasive and refused to give clear answers to questions related to the smuggling of cigarettes and also concealed vital information which indicates his involvement in the illegal activities. The Respondent denied having any knowledg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Counsel further submits that the entire allegations against the Respondent is only on the basis of statement of Sh. Chander Shekhar (who is mastermind in the alleged offence) recorded on 08.09.2021 & 09.09.2021 and that summons dated 08.09.2021 is not part of relied upon documents; appearance of Sh. Chander Shekhar without summons is not a coincidence but same is result of counter blast from Quick Response Team after arrest of Smt. Parul Garg, the then Additional Commissioner of Customs and also head of Quick Response Team. 5.2 The learned Counsel further submits that in the statement dated 08.09.2021 & 09.09.2021, Sh. Chander Shekhar took a complete U-turn and implicated the Respondent as mastermind and main beneficiary; but whatever he stated in his said statement was completely without any proof and totally contrary to evidences available on record; it has come on record that Sh. Chander Shekhar was not only owner of importing firm but also owner of exporting overseas supplier. 5.3 The learned Counsel further submits that in the statement of Sh. Chander Shekhar dated 19.05.2021 & 20.05.2021, he has stated to be the real owner and importer, but did not name the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompletely wrong whereas it has been proved that the goods had been supplied by the firm which is owned by Sh. Chander Shekhar. The learned Counsel denies the meeting of the Respondent with Sh. Chander Shekhar in Dubai as there is no evidence adduced to that effect. 5.9 The learned Counsel further submits that the Respondent was neither the Customs Broker nor authorized person to enter into the Customs Area and the allegation against him, that he tried to clear the goods, is without any basis. 5.10 The learned Counsel further submits that Sh. Amandeep Singh Bagri, a CHA who filed BoE in the instant case, has stated in his statements that he dealt only and only with Sh. Chander Shekhar regarding import clearance who provided him import documents along with KYC documents. Sh. Amandeep Singh Bagri did not name the Respondent having relation in impugned consignment. There is nothing on record which shows any kind of role of the Respondent in said import. 5.11 The learned Counsel also submits that the penalties have been imposed upon the Respondent under Sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submits that no penalty can be imposed under Section 112 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so find that even the CHA, Sh. Amandeep Singh Bagri, who filed the BoE and other documents before the Customs Authorities, did not say any word against the Respondent that Sh. Sanjay Choudhary was at all involved in the import of prohibited goods. The CHA clearly stated that he dealt only and only with Sh. Chander Shekhar who provided him all the documents along with KYC documents for clearance of the imported goods. 9. The other allegation that the Respondent has tried to clear the consignment by visiting the ICD CONCOR on 18.05.2021, was also not proved by any corroborative evidence and further, the behaviour of the Respondent during the investigations, also did not bring any concrete facts on record. 10. We also find that in the facts & circumstances, the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(i) and Section 114AA is not legally sustainable because the Respondent has neither imported the goods nor dealt with the goods in any way; there is no evidence placed on record to show that the Respondent was anywhere related to the imported goods or has played any role in importing such goods and the Department has failed to prove as to how penalty is imposable under Section 1....