Shri Ramesh Kumar Chhabra vs C.C. (Preventive), New Delhi

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/606/2009-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.17/Commr/HKT/2009, dated 12.08.2009 passed by the C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi]

Shri Ramesh Kumar Chhabra Appellant

Vs.

C.C. (Preventive), New Delhi Respondent

Appearance

None - for the appellant

Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.53818/2015, dated 23.09.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh :

Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2009, which upheld Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2009, in terms of which penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2007 specific intelligence was allegedly gathered by Customs to the effect that (i) intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be fraudulently cleared from ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), even without examination by Customs Authority. (ii) The location of the impugned container was told to be near petrol pump, opposite canteen in the Import Shed examination area of ICD, TKD. (iii) These goods were informed to be loaded on specific trucks after de-stuffing from the said container. (iv) Further, these goods will be cleared under the gate pass of some other garments. As such, a team of Preventive Officers rushed to ICD, TKD, and traced out the said container near petrol pump, opposite canteen located in the import shed of ICD, TKD. The aforesaid trucks were also found parked nearby the subject container out of which one truck was already fully loaded with the bales and the second truck was in the process of being loaded. Surveillance was kept. After loading of the second truck both the trucks moved towards the exit gate and were intercepted by Customs officers. On being asked, the drivers of both the trucks, confirmed that they had got the said goods loaded from the impugned container. Further, they informed that they were not having any document related to the impugned goods and that they would get the gate pass at the exit gate of ICD, TKD.

3. No one appeared for hearing when the case was called nor was there any request for adjournment and therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

4. The appellant has essentially contended that he was an employee of M/s. Quick Clear Agency, holding CHA licence and was looking after only office work. He was falsely implicated in the matter. He had nothing to do with the smuggling and had retracted his statement.

5. We have perused the records. The appellant is manager of M/s Quick Clearing Agency, CHA and a partner in M/s PH Logistics in which the other partner was Mr. Narendra Singh. He directly and actively participated in the smuggling in this case is evident from para 46.4 of the impugned order, the contents of which are not being repeated here for brevity. The said para clearly brings out that as per the appellants own statement relating to the Bill of Entry in respect of the impugned container was handed over by Mr .Narendra Singh to the appellant to get the same signed from Mr. Shailender Singh who was a G-card holder of M/s P.D. Easwaran, CHA. He got the printout of the concerned Bill of Entry from CMC and gave the same to Mr. Narinder Singh for getting the goods cleared from Customs. Mr. Narinder Singh told him that in some containers imported by M/s. Chirag Textiles, Panipat there were old and used complete garments in place of rags. He confessed that either he or Mr. Surinder Singh used to call the transporters for sending trucks. Mr. Narender Singh in his statement has confirmed that as per the understanding of the appellant he (Mr. Narinder Singh) will look after only examination work and the rest of the work was looked after by the appellant Mr Deepak Jain of M/s Chirag Textiles used to send the draft for customs duty which used to be deposited in the account of the appellant at ICICI bank. Mr. Narinder Singh also accepted that the transport used to be arranged either by the appellant or by him (i.e., Mr. Narender Singh). In the case of K.I. Pavunni Vs. Astt. Collector [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)], Supreme Court has in effect held that a bald retraction without any evidence of coercion does not take away the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act ,1962. Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value was Rs.1.13 crores, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore we find no such infirmity in the impugned order with regard to the penalty imposed on the appellant as to invite appellate intervention. The appeal is dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-2-