Case Law Details
Charanjit Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) (CESTAT Kolkata)
The allegations are made that Appellant had actively participated in the operations regarding fraudulent import of the said cars and undertook the clearance of the cars from Kolkata port, where the said car was cleared as per the declaration. There was no mis-declaration at all as these documents were being forwarded from foreign countries. At the most, the Appellant has acted as mode to hand over all the documents. The Appellant is not aware about the contents of documents.
The Appellant submits that Section 114AA is not applicable in charging the Appellant for penalty when documents on the basis of which Appellant is charged are not in the manner laid down under Section 138C. The same should be authenticated in the manner which is prescribed under Section 138C. As Section 138C is not proved then the penalty levied under Section 114AA will not be attracted.
CESTAT not impressed by the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant. The main contention of the Counsel is that DRI Officer, without any investigation, has come to a conclusion that the cars were old and used. He further submitted that the penalties on the Appellant have been imposed merely by relying on the statement of the CHA that the cars were dealt by the Appellant.
CESTAT find that the authorities below had discussed in detail in respect of imposition of penalty on the Appellant. It is evident from the record that in some of the cases, the Appellant’s involvement cannot be denied. However, I find force in the submission of the Appellant that the quantum of penalty is quite excessive.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
