ARIF I. PATEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been imposed on them of Rs. 1 lakh each. The brief facts of the case are that one container bearing No. PCIU 3520095 arrived at Bombay port. As per the import manifest, the said container contained aluminium scrap whereas on examination it was found that goods loaded were cigarettes and ball bearing. No bill of entry was filed for clearance of this container. During the investigation, it was revealed that the import manifest shows the name of the importer as M/s. Manav Export Merchant owner by Shri Sashikant Kamble. The investigation further revealed that the importer M/s. Manav Export Merchant used to clear their earlier consignment at Ahmedabad ICD. It further revealed that the appellant Shri Kashyap J. Badekha had contacts with Shri Shinde, a clerk at Mumbai port who introduced one Shri R.S. Patil who helped him for import of certain goods. Shri R.S. Patil obtained the IEC in the name of M/s. Manav Export Merchant owner by Shri Sashikant Kamble with the help of the appellant Shri Kashyap J. Badekha. Shri Kashyap J. Badekha also introduced Shri Arif Patel, an employee of CHA working at Ahmedabad for clearance of the goods imported by M/s. Manav Export Merchant at Ahmedabad ICD. In these set of facts, when the consignment was found misdeclared and having contraband goods, the proceedings were initiated against both the appellants and penalties of Rs. 1 lakh each have been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) THE ld. counsel for Shri Kashyap J. Badekha and ld. consultant for Shri Arif Patel appeared before us and submits that the role of Shri Kashyap J. Badekha was only to introduce Shri Arif Patel, CHA for clearance of the goods imported by M/s. Manav Export Merchant at Ahmedabad and he also helped to get IEC to Shri R.S. Patel in the name of M/s. Manav Export Merchant owned by Shri Sashikant Kamble. He has no role to play for the importation of goods by Shri R.S. Patel in the name of M/s. Manav Export Merchant. He was not aware of the description of goods at all. Therefore, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. He further submits that in this case penalty has been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act on the premise that importer has contravened the provisions of Section 111(a), (f) and (j) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the provisions of Section 111(a), (f) and (j) penalty on the appellant is not imposable as these sections do not attract the role of the appellant to impose penalty.

(3.) ON the other hand, ld. AR submits that Shri Kashyap J. Badekha was the master mind in import of contraband goods as he has obtained IEC in the name of M/s. Mariav Export Merchant under the proprietorship of Shri Sashikant Kamble, who was involved with Shri R.S. Patel and all these persons have been introduced by Shri Shinde at Bombay port, in the past also, they have imported these goods and got cleared these goods at ICD Ahmedabad. He further submits that the modus operandi of the appellant/importer is that when the container travelling between Bombay and Ahmedabad, the goods used to be changed. Therefore, the penalty on the appellants are rightly imposed.