NARENDRA B. JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (Shri Narendra B. Jain) has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs have been imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that an intelligence was gathered that one consignment of cigarette, (which are contravened goods) is being imported under the guise of computer casing. Therefore, the investigation started and one container of M/s. Darshana Impex was intercepted and panchanama carried out. On examination, it was found that the container is stuffed with 425 cases of cigarettes of foreign origin. Therefore, same were seized under a reasonable belief that they are liable to confiscation and the proceedings were started. The statements of various persons were recorded. On the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation, a case has been made against the CHA, and the importer Shri Narendra B. Jain and other noticees. Adjudication took place and it was held that the impugned consignment, (although no bill of entry is filed) is proposed to be imported by Shri Narendra B. Jain, the appellant before me, and on the basis of statements, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 have been imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, appeal is before me.

(2.) SHRI Sujay Kantawala, ld. counsel for the appellant appeared and submits that the appellant have no nexus with the import of the said consignment as no bill of entry has been filed by the appellant nor anybody else. He further submits that there is no inculpatory statement has been recorded regarding the import of the impugned consignment. It is also submitted that during the course of adjudication, the cross -examination of co -noticees were asked (whose statement were relied by the Adjudicating Authority during the course of proceedings) but no cross -examination was allowed to the appellant. He further submits that for the consignment imported earlier were held by the Adjudicating Authority not liable for confiscation. Therefore, in these circumstances, penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not warranted. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of Ashwin S. Mehta -, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 386 (Tri. -Mum.) and Basudev Garg & Ors. - : 2013 -TIOL -464 -HC -DEL -CUS : 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.).

(3.) HEARD both sides. Considered the submissions in detail.