ASHWINI KUMAR TANDON Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal filed by the appellant challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. C/799 & 800/2009. The appeals before the Tribunal were directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant would submit that at least on two grounds this appeal raises substantial questions of law. It is submitted that before the Tribunal a specific contention was raised that the proceedings were identical against the appellant and others, they deserved to be dropped against the appellant as the others were exonerated though termed as master mind, then, there was no justification for continuing the proceedings against the appellant and penalising him. The Tribunal, thus, completely erred in holding that the alleged real importer of the cars was exonerated in the first proceedings and therefore, the appellant cannot claim the benefit thereof in the present proceedings particularly when the Department had accepted the exoneration of master mind.

(2.) IT is next submitted that the substantial question of law would arise because the Tribunal has erred in law relying on the statement of co -notice Shri Anoop Gandhi without there being any independent evidence to corroborate the contents of the same.

(3.) MR . Gandhi and Ashwin Kumar Tandon placed orders for import of vehicles on a company Inpub in Japan which company belonged to Mr. Satish Tandon, specifying the name of the passengers in whose names the invoices of the vehicle were to be done. The payment of the car was made by Mr. D.K. Jain. The foreign exchange requirement for customs duty was arranged to be transferred to the account of the passengers by Mr. Satish Tandon. Thereafter, those cars would be sold and the payment/purchase price would be sent to the company 'Inpub' through illegal channels.