V.K. SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order -in -Original No. 10/2004 -Cus., dated 31 -3 -2004 vide which the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the proprietor Shri V.K. Singh of M/s. Global Airfreight.

(2.) THE brief facts chat arise for consideration are that the appellant is a Customs House Agent (CHA). The case of the Revenue against the appellant is that the appellant had abetted in filing the shipping bills of some of the assessees i.e. M/s. Sri Vishnu Merchants, Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Shri Rajnish Agarwal etc. wherein a fraud was detected in the export of the goods by these firms. The allegation against the current appellant is that he being a CHA instead of filing the shipping bills on his name, the appellant filed the same through M/s. CSR International. It was alleged that Shri V.K. Singh, the proprietor was fully aware of the fraud and mis -declaration of the goods and knowing this he deliberately got the shipping bills filed by another person who did not have elementary knowledge of export of the goods or procedures thereto. On completion of investigations, Revenue authorities issued show cause notice to the current appellant and others. The current appellant contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority by filing the reply and also appeared before them. The adjudicating authority did not accept the contentions raised by the appellant, before him and came to the conclusion that appellant is liable to the penalized under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and coming to such conclusion, he imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LD . Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that findings of the adjudicating authority as regards the role played by the current appellant is recorded in para 35.2 and 35.3 of the Order -in -Original. After taking us through the said findings, he submits that the adjudicating authority has not put forth any evidence that the appellant herein had mala fide intention and had abetted the fraudulent exports if any, done by other persons. He would submit that the imposition of penalty under Section 114 cannot be imposed upon appellant unless there is a positive role attributable to the appellant herein. It is also his submission that the appellant herein is the only person who had contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority and has been contesting the same before the Tribunal also.