ALOK GUPTA Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of Shri Alok Gupta is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962.

(2.) The brief facts leading into imposition of penalty are like this. Certain imports of glassware were made in March 2001 in the name of M/s. Essem Enterprises, F -440, Kanpur, New Delhi. Two bills of entry being Nos. 238513 and 238522 both dated 14.3.2001 were filed in the inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for the clearance of these goods. The appellant went to the customs in connection with the clearance of the goods. Apprehending that the goods have been under valued, customs authorities questioned the appellant and recorded a statement under Section 108 or the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant explained that he was a trader in both indigenous and imported crockery and he has arranged the import of the goods, alonwith Shri Rohit Kumar who is the Proprietor of M/s. Essem Enterpries. As regards details of the import, he stated that the goods are of Indonesian origin and that the arrangement was made through Hong Kong. With regard to the value of the goods he stated that under the arrangement, import invoice was to indicate only 2/3rd of the actual price and the remaining 1/3rd price was being paid in Hong Kong through his Uncle Shri Roshan Lal Gupta, who is a Hong Kong passport holder. This statement was recorded on 21.3.2001. After further inquiries, a show cause notice dated 23.10.2001 was issued proposing confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties and demanding differential duty upon enhancement of the value of the goods. The impugned order has been passed in those proceedings, The Commissioner has passed the order based on the confession/disclosure made by Shri Alok Gupta in his statement, despite the fact that the appellant had retracted his statement.

(3.) In the present appeal, the submission is that the importing firm belongs to another person Shri Rohit Kumar and that the appellant was only assisting him since Rohit Kumar is a semi educated person. It is the submission that since he is not the Importer, Imposition of penalty was not justified. It is further contended that since the statement given to the custom authorities had been retracted on 12.4.2001, no penalty should have been imposed based on the statement.