TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Date Name of Exporter Amount of Penalty (in Rs.) Shipping Bill Details 1. C/75240/2023 KOL/CUS/JC/55/SIB/ 2021 dated 29.07.2021 KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/ 78/2023 dated 01.02.2023 M/s. Spica Overseas 50,000/- u/s 114(iii) 1,00,000/- u/s 114AA 4735565 Dated 07.06.2019 4728016 Dated 07.06.2019 2. C/75270/2023 KOL/CUS/JC/38/SIB (Port)/2021 dated 29.06.2021 KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/ 87/2023 dated 07.02.2023 M/s. Mercury Overseas 2,00,000/- u/s 114(iii) 4,00,000/- u/s 114AA 4849706 dated 13.06.2019 4849034 dated 13.06.2019 4848527 dated 13.06.2019 4847397 dated 13.06.2019 3. C/75255/2023 KOL/CUS/JC/63/SIB/ 2021 dated 13.08.2021 KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/ 124/2023 dated 14.02.2023 M/s. Laxmi Trading 1,00,000/- u/s 114(iii) 2,00,000/- u/s 114AA 4835264 dated 12.06.2019 4. C/75257/2023 KOL/CUS/JC/47/SIB/ 2021 dated 27.07.2021 KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/ 123/2023 dated 14.02.2023 M/s. Green Plus Impex 1,00,000/- u/s 114(iii) 2,00,000/- u/s 114AA 4793093 dated 11.06.2019 4793469 dated 11.06.2019 4791219 dated 11.06.2019 4793522 dated 11.06.2019 5. C/76578/2024 KOL/CUS/JC/59/SIB/ 2021 dated 03.08.2021 KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/ 70/2023 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned orders, affirmed the findings of the authorities below and upheld the penalties imposed upon the appellant, as indicated above. 4.3. Against the said orders, the appellant is before us. 5. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the issue involved in the present batch of appeals is no longer res integra and stands concluded in favour of the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the appellant's own case arising out of separate proceedings initiated on identical facts and circumstances, vide Final Order Nos. 75531-75532 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75256 & 75279 of 2023 (CESTAT, Kolkata) passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. It was submitted that, in the said decision, the Tribunal, while considering identical allegations, had set aside the penalties imposed upon the appellant under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. It was, therefore, contended that the facts and issues involved in the present appeals being identical, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies and deserves to be followed. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed that the penalties imposed upon the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiation of action against him under the CBLR provisions being entirely distinct, is not at all relevant to the present proceedings. The department has nowhere been able to show that the appellant had any knowledge about the material goods being exported or their value (inflated or otherwise), which rendered the said goods liable for confiscation. Also there is no evidence placed on record to connect the appellant with the said exports. Mere providing of contact/reference and documents related to certain exports to a third person, cannot itself be considered as an offending cause, liable for penal action under law. The Revenue was required to corroborate this, with clear evidence to suggest that such an exercise was pre-mediated with ill design for export of consignments that were overvalued with intents for availment of higher amount of IGST credit. Without such knowledge being ascribed to on part of the appellant, it would be utterly improper to subject them to penal consequences under law. It indeed, is a fact that any mis-declaration in terms of valuation of goods is done by the exporter, may or may not be with the connivance of the Customs Broker associated with the matter. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IGST refund fraudulently, thus causing loss to exchequer. The goods were seized on 18.12.2019 under section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 under proper seizure/detention memo. Hence, the goods are liable for confiscation under section 113(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and rendering the Exporter and Customs Broker llable for penal action under section 114(iii) & 114AA of the Act, Ibid." Customs Appeal No.75279 of 2023 "62. I find from the investigation conducted so far, that gross mis-declaration in terms of valuation has been done by the exporter, M/s. Asian Enterprises with the connivance of Customs Broker, M/s. Advent Shipping Agency for the purpose of availing IGST refund fraudulently, thus causing loss to exchequer. The goods were seized on 18.12.2019 under section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 under proper seizure/detention memo. Hence, the goods are liable for confiscation under section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and rendering the Exporter and Customs Broker liable for penal action under section 114(iii) & 114AA of the Act, ibid." 10. The only basis as made out by the lower authorities for imposition of penalty is what is stated in para 63 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a it is evident that they contacted Sri Becharam Das of M/s. Advent Shipping Agency for the subject export. It is further evident from the discussions above, that Sri Ramkrishna Kole joined M/s. Advent Shipping Agency to facilitate the export and to become an authorized signatory of the CB firm for clearance of the cargo and as soon as the consignments were cleared he again rejoined his former employer M/s. SSS Sal Forwards. From the above discussion it transpires that Sri Kousik Nandy of M/s. SSS Sal Forwarders was actively involved in the subject export and its clearance. I also find that Sri Nandy is trying to seek refuge by placing the responsibility on his employees and denying having any knowledge that his company served as the contact between the exporter and the Customs Broker M/s. Advent Shipping Agency. Moreover, the statement of Sri Kousik Nandy, the documents recovered during the search of his office premises and the recorded statements of the employees of M/s.SSS Sai Forwarders appears to be indicating towards his collusion with fraudulent exports and its clearance, which rendering Sri Kousik Nandy of M/S. SSS Sal Forwarders liable for penal action under Section 114 (l....