C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi vs Mr. Deepak Aggarwal

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No. C/52568/2015-CU[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CCA/CUS/Prev/388/2015, dated 09.04.2015 passed by the C.C.(Appeals), New Delhi]

C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi Appellant

Vs.

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal Respondent

Appearance

Mr. BB Sharma, DR - For Appellant

Mr. Bipin Garg, Advocate - For Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.___54162/2015, dated 23.09.2015

Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 09.04.2015, passed by C.C.(Appeals), New Delhi, reducing the redemption fine and penalty amount with consequential relief, in favour of the respondent herein.

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that a specific intelligence was received that a container bearing No.HDMU6480486 consigned to M/s. Planet Overseas lying for clearance at ICD, Tughlakabad, contained restricted goods, namely, fire crackers valued at Rs.44,82,226/-, for approximately two months, but no Bill of Entry was filed by the importer. The consignment was examined and seized on 03.04.2012 under Section 110 of the Customs act, 1962 and a Show Cause Notice was issued on 28.09.2012, in the name of the Respondent.

2.2 On further investigation, it was detected by the Customs Department that M/s. Planet Overseas was a bogus/non-existent firm and Import Export Code (IEC) of the said firm has been used by Shri Deepak Aggarwal, the respondent, for import of Chinese mobile phones, against five consignments, without valid IEC licence and thus, had rendered the consignment liable to confiscation, which was imported vide Bill of Entry No.6327188, dated 22.03.2012. The respondent importer had used the bogus IEC in the name of non-existent firm, namely, M/s. Planet Overseas for imports in respect of five shipments of mobile phones valued at Rs.2,26,76,357/-. The imported consignment covered under the Bill of Entry No.6327188, dated 22.03.2012 valued at Rs.41,28,729/- was seized by Seizure Memo dated 01.11.2012.

2.3 Show cause proceedings were initiated, seeking confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalty. The same were adjudicated vide order dated 11.04.2014, confiscating the consignment of the imported goods. Since the consignment was already been released, a redemption fine of Rs.10 lakh was imposed on the Respondent. Further, penalty of Rs.5 lakh was imposed on the Respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the redemption fine and penalty amount were appropriated under the said order of adjudication, from the deposits made by the Respondent. In appeal against the adjudication order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has reduced the amount of redemption fine and penalty, with consequential relief to the Respondent. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty is the subject matter of the present dispute.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. I find that upon proper analysis of the facts of the case, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, holding that the respondent herein has not made any wrong or fraudulent submissions documentary or otherwise, before the Customs or DGFT officials, and that customs duty has been paid by the respondent correctly at the time of import of goods; that the respondent has not taken the IEC from DGFT; that there is no documentary or oral evidence on record that the respondent was aware of the facts that the IEC has been procured on forged documents. Further, it has been held that there was no intent to import the goods fraudulently or on IEC procured on forged documents.

4. Since the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upon proper analysis and fact finding has arrived at the above conclusion, and has consequently reduced the redemption fine and penalty amount, I do not find it proper to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. Therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

[Operative portion pronounced in the open court]

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

Neha

-5-