TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aport and NSCBI Air Cargo Complex. Samples from one of the consignments were tested and found to contain Paraquat, not Industrial Washing Liquid and the case was adjudicated upon culmination of the investigation. 2.2. Further enquiries launched into past shipments, and additional evidences gathered during investigation indicated that similar mis-declaration in was made in respect of Bill of Entry No. 8426063 dated 03.02.2017, implicating several individuals including Customs House Agent S. Murugan and the appellant Shri Arghya Sengupta. 2.3. During his statement made before investigating authorities, Shri Sengupta admitted to using S. Murugan's license for clearance, receiving instructions from Shri Manoj Agarwal, and knowing that the actual goods were Paraquat, not "Liquid Industrial Soap". It appeared to the department that Arghya Sengupta's involvement as a middleman in facilitating the illicit importation of Paraquat under false declarations was evident. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant asking for explanations regarding penalties imposable under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b), and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.4. Following th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n behalf of his company. Shri Swarup Sana also stated that Mr. Arghya Sengupta was responsible for collecting clearance orders from various importers and would prepare all the required documentation. Mr. Arghya Sengupta used to be present during the verification and clearance processes before customs after obtaining authorization from Shri Swarup Sana. He also added that for allowing use of the S. MURUGAN, CHA's License, Mr. Arghya Sengupta used to pay him Rs. 12,000/- per month. 2.7. In his statement dated March 1, 2021, Shri Arghya Sengupta and the appellant in the present case, with G Card No. 112/25, stated the following: (i) He used to receive orders for the clearance of imported goods from various importers. He then used to prepare all the required import documents based on the documentation provided by these importers and proceed to clear the consignments through the Customs House Agent (CHA), S. Murugan. S. Murugan has its Chennai address as Room no-07, RSSR Complex, 3rd Floor, Chennai-600001 (License No. R-80) and also maintains a Kolkata office at 4, Fairley Place, Room No. 618, Kolkata-1. His father, Mr. Partha Sengupta (G-PASS NO. 1-12/17 and GP-784/18),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearance process while being fully aware that Paraquat was being imported under the false declaration of "Liquid Industrial Soap" in the said Bill of Entry. Shri Arghya Sengupta's deliberate actions in assisting M/s. Puskar Tradecom Pvt Ltd. in the clearance of mis-declared cargo render the impugned goods subject to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, it appeared that Shri Arghya Sengupta's acts and omissions make him liable to penalties under Section 112(a) and/or Section 112(b), and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.9. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice No. No S206 (Misc)- 79/2021 Appr Gr.II dated 05/01/2022 was issued to the appellant interalia proposing penalty on him under section 112(a) or 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.10. The Ld. adjudicating authority vide O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/ADC/PORT/63/Gr. II/2022 dated 17.10.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- upon the appellant under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed another penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/-under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned Order, the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and specific knowledge must be present for invocation of Section 112 of Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider that the recovery of goods described in the Bill of Entry No. 8426063 dated 03.02.2017 cannot be the sole cause for imposition of penalty. Involvement and specific knowledge must be present for invocation of Section 112 of upon the appellant. G. Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that in the present case, the appellant cannot be brought under the domain of Section 114AA of Customs Act, '62 which deals with situation of intentionally making or using declaration statement or documents which is false or incorrect in the transaction of any business for the purpose of Customs Act. The said Section is intended to penalize situation where there are paper transaction without any actual import or export of goods. In the present case, the department has no case that the transaction was paper transaction only and no goods were imported by the Appellant and therefore, penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, '62 upon the appellant is not at all warranted. H. There is no case that the Appellant has done any act which is speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the preparation of import clearance. The Appellant facilitated the clearance of the goods filing the Bills of Entry with the Customs Authorities. 7.3. In the present case, we find that mis declaration of the description/classification of the goods imported in the Bill of Entry No. 8426063 dated 03.02.2017 is sole cause for allegation against the Appellant. We find that the Appellant has filed the documents along with the Bill of Entry on the basis of the documents provided to him by the Importer. If the department has any doubt about the description or classification of the goods, then they were free to draw the samples and propose reclassification of the goods. The Appellant, being a Custom House Agent cannot be alleged misclassification of the goods. 7.4. Further, we find that the entire case of the department is based on the statement of Shri. Manoj Agarwal, one of the Directors of M/S Puskar Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, the importing Firm. As the allegation against the Appellant is solely based on the statement of Shri. Manoj Agarwal, the Appellant has sought for his cross examination. We find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has blatantly denied the request for cross examin....