TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against Order-in-Original No. KOL/COMMISSIONER/ PORT/16/2019 dated 14.06.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, to the extent it imposes penalty upon the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was one amongst several noticees to a common Show Cause Notice alleging improper importation of components of electrical tricycles in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition by M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. through alleged mis-declaration and misclassification of the imported goods as parts/components of electrical tricycles with the object of evading customs duty. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned, the allegation was not that he had himself imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5304, 75305/2026 and C/75856-75858/2025, whereby the appeals of M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. and its Directors were allowed and the Revenue's appeals dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed upon him under the original adjudication order dated 14.06.2019, the appellant is before us. 5. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is entirely consequential and derivative in nature, the sole allegation against him being that he had allegedly abetted the imports undertaken by M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. It is contended that the very foundation of such allegation no longer survives in view of the subsequent decision of this Tribunal dated 02.07.2026 in the appeals p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the penalty imposed on the appellant herein is even otherwise unsustainable on this count. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 8. We find that in this case, the present appellant was not proceeded against as the importer of the impugned goods. The allegation against him is confined to alleged abetment of the imports undertaken by M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. It is thus evident that the proceedings against the present appellant are wholly dependent upon the existence of the principal contravention alleged against M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. 9. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Ltd. themselves having been rejected and the very foundation of the Revenue's case having ceased to exist, the allegation that the present appellant had abetted such alleged improper importation cannot independently survive. Once the principal proceedings themselves have culminated in favour of the importer, no separate basis remains for sustaining penal consequences against a person alleged merely to have aided or abetted such imports. 11. In these circumstances, we hold that the penalty imposed upon the present appellant under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. We observe that the appellant has also taken the alternate plea that the impugned order in respect of the appella....