COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, EXPORT Vs. VIKRAM SINGH DAHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 16-11-2007 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 619 (Tri.-Del.).].

(2.) The respondent had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the personal penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed on him under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 . The facts revealed are that M/s. Khayati International, which is a proprietary concern of one Sh. Vijay Tanwar, filed a shipping bill for export under the duty drawback scheme to the extent of Rs. 5,35,476/-. It was found that the value of the goods was enhanced by the said exporter to claim more duty drawback. Statements of Mr. Vijay Tanwar were recorded wherein he stated, apart from other things, that the respondent (Mr. Vikram Singh Dahiya) had introduced him to the Hong Kong buyer and helped him in getting the IEC code number. The premises of the respondent were also searched. However, nothing incriminating was recovered therefrom. Penalty, however, was imposed on the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid facts.

(3.) The Tribunal, after considering factual position returned a finding that even if it was accepted that the respondent helped Sh. Vijay Tanwar in getting the IEC code or in the procurement of the goods to be exported, there is nothing on record to indicate that the benefit of drawback which Mr. Vijay Tanwar was seeking to derive, was to be shared by the respondent. The Tribunal was of the view that helping a person in procuring an IEC code or in buying the goods to be exported is not sufficient, without there being any evidence to show that the said person was a party to the offence to be committed by the exporter. Consequently, the Tribunal was of the view that no penal action could be taken against the respondent under Section 114. It was also noted by the Tribunal that apart from the statement of Mr. Vijay Tanwar, there was no other corroborative evidence against the respondent. After returning the said findings of fact, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no justifiable reason for imposing the penalty on the respondent and set aside the same.