PRADEEP ATMARAM KASHID, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) in adjudication of a show -cause notice dated 23.2.04. The learned Commissioner found that Shri Harvinder Singh Oberoi, proprietor of M/s Omkar Manufacturers (appellant in appeal C/925/07) committed the act of smuggling of the goods in question thereby rendering himself liable to penalization under Section 112(a) of the Act. Shri Pradeep Atmaram Kashid (appellant in appeal C/782/07) and Shri Baldev Singh Perhar (appellant in appeal C/924/07) were also held to have rendered themselves liable to penal action under the same provision of law. The goods in question were imported in the name of M/s Omkar Manufacturers. Two Bills of Entry dated 25.8.2003 were filed in their name by the authorized signatory of M/s Jayantilal Bhuralal Udani & Co., Customs House Agent (CHA No. 11/185). The declaration appended to each Bill of Entry was signed by one Harvinder Singh as proprietor of M/s Omkar Manufacturers. Each consignment was presented as wooden photo -frames together with 100% polyester fabrics. The goods were assessed on the basis of this declaration at the docks by the appraiser Shri S.J. Alvares. The assessed duty was paid, whereupon out -of -charge order was issued by Shri Alvares under Section 47 of the Act. Subsequently, however, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) stepped in and caused the goods to be examined, whereupon it was found that both the consignments contained electronic goods, which were valued at Rs. 1,37,81,680/-, on which duty of over Rs. 43.65 lakhs was leviable. The DRI officers conducted further investigations including recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. On the basis of the results of these investigations, the aforesaid show -cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Act for confiscating the goods (which were seized under panchnama dated 28.8.03) under Section 111 of the Act and imposing penalties on the noticees under Section 112 of the Act. The present appellants were among the six noticees including the Appraiser of Customs. The proposal to impose penalties was contested by the appellants and others. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 5.00 lakhs, Rs. 50,000/ - and Rs. 1.00 lakh respectively on the appellants in appeal Nos. C/782/07, C/925/07 and C/934/07. These penalties are under Section 112(a) of the Act. The Commissioner also noted the fact that the goods had already been sold and the sale proceeds deposited in Government treasury. Further, for the record, she ordered confiscation of the goods under the provisions invoked in the show -cause notice. Contextually, I am told that an amount of over Rs. 49.22 lakhs was collected by the Government as sale proceeds of the goods.

(2.) IT appears from the records that none of the appellants has claimed the goods, nor is any of them aggrieved by its confiscation. In this scenario, the challenge in these appeals against the penalties imposed on the appellants requires to be considered on the premise that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. The question arising in each appeal is whether the appellants, by their commissions or omissions, rendered the goods liable to confiscation.

(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant Pradeep Atmaram Kashid has complained that the adjudicating authority denied natural justice to his client by (a) not allowing him to cross-examine Harvinder Singh Oberoi (proprietor of M/s Omkar Manufacturers), (b) not supplying record of cross-examination of Harvinder Singh Oberoi by the appraiser, and (c) passing an ex-parte order. It is also pointed out that Pradeep Atmaram Kashid was mulcted with a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs, whereas a lesser penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh was imposed on Baldev Singh Perhar though both of them were found to be guilty of, more or less, the same offence.