NAVEENJAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein Shri Naveen Jain was Noticee No. 4 in the show cause notice C. No. VIII (CARGO PREV.)10/1798/290 dated 14.07.98 issued by Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi. As per the said notice, appellant and other noticees were called upon to explain why 4, 908 pieces of 'Computer Software CD ROMs Lotus Smart Suite -97' seized from the godown and office premises of M/s. Somerset International Ltd. on 16.04.98 should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on them for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 under Section 112 of the Act. In reply to the notice, appellant herein raised a contention that he was not connected with the import of disputed CD ROMs and that he is not liable for any penalty. By order -in -original No. ACU/VS/27/99 dated 08.09.99, adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalty so imposed is under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel representing the appellant raised following contentions for our consideration : -

(3.) APPELLANT submitted reply to the show cause notice through his counsel Shri Rohit P. Ranjan. In that reply, it was admitted that appellant was a Director of M/s. Somerset International Ltd. It was further stated therein that he ceased to be a Director with effect from November, 1996. This averment has not been substantiated by any of the documents produced in the case. Appellant did, in fact, issue cheques towards payment of the value of the goods imported and also sent various documents under his signatures. If there was any iota of truth in the allegations that he relinquished his position as Director in November 1996, he could not have sent documents under his signatures which concerned the import in question. To counter this, a case has been put forth by him stating that his signed papers were in the possession of the company and those papers were utilised for getting the software imported. This contention is only to be stated to be rejected for no prudent man could have allowed his signed blank papers to be left with by the company. Further, this contention is belied by the fact that cheques were issued by him to effect payments for the import of these goods. Taking into consideration the official transactions undertaken by the appellant, by issuing letters and cheques, we have no hesitation in overruling his contention that he ceased to be a Director of the company in November, 1996. The notice gave sufficient material to bring out the present appellant's involvement in the import of software at inflated rates. On going through the show cause notice as a whole, it cannot be said that the notice was vague and that the appellant herein was disabled from putting forth an effective defence. Therefore, we overrule the first contention raised by the appellant.