Shri Sitaram Goyal vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad

(Arising out of OIA-86/2006/AHD/CUS/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 10.10.2006, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Ahmedabad)

Shri Sitaram Goyal : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri A.S. Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S. Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

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 should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 09.10.2015

ORDER No. A/11402/2015 Dated 09.10.2015

Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem

The appellant herein is Director of M/s. Goyal Knit Fab Pvt. Limited, Surat upon whom a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Original Adjudicating Authority. On an appeal by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Original, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs One lakh. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.

2. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the goods imported viz., polyester yarn seized from the appellant was notified under Section 123 of the Act, whereas it is factually incorrect and the same is not specified in the Notification No. 31/86-Cus dated 05.02.1986 as amended during the relevant period. He also submits that appellant purchased the goods from the open market and was under the bonafide belief that the goods were duty paid and there was no intention to evade duty. He also submitted that appellant is neither a Central Excise assessee nor a registered dealer and he was not required to maintain documents prescribed under Central Excise and Customs. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Systems vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai  2003 (154) ELT 71 (Tri. Chennai), and in the case of Shankeshwar Metal Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai  2014 (312) ELT 344 (Tri. Mumbai).

3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the appellant had purchased the goods from Shri Jitendra Shah, a Broker. He further submits that the goods were imported availing the duty benefit under Export Promotion Scheme and therefore, the goods had escaped the customs duty liability. Shri Jitendra Shah had accepted the fact and has paid the duty and penalty. The appellant herein had facilitated in duty evasion by purchasing the goods from Shri Jitendra Shah without invoices/ documents and making payment in cash. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant is warranted. He relied upon the decision of this Bench of the Honble Tribunal in the case of Alpha Synthetics & Ors vs. CCE, Surat [Order No. A/10732-10735/2015 dated 13.05.2015], and in the case of Shailja Polyester Pvt. Limited & Others vs. CCE, Surat [Order No. A/10747-10755/2015 dated 11.05.2015].

4. On consideration of the submissions of both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the role of the appellant is limited to buying the seized goods from Shri Jitendra Shah, Broker without invoices/ documents. There is no allegation that the appellant connived with Shri Jitendra Shah in positive evasion of Customs duty. However, it is a case of readiness of the appellant to buy such goods without valid documents/ invoices which facilitated Shri Jitendra Shah indulging in illegal activities, which resulted in confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on Shri Jitendra Shah. The appellant was also fined for his role in the matter.

5. As the goods were seized from appellant herein and he had dealt with the confiscated goods, he is also liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the role of the appellant, a lenient view is taken and the penalty imposed upon the appellant herein is reduced from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(P.M. Saleem) Member (Technical) .KL

4