Umesh Kumar Vs Pr Commissioner of Customs New Delhi (Preventive) (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty justified since appellant holding IEC registration ought to have acted responsibly and ensured that the same was not misused by any third party. Thus, penalty imposed on the appellant justified since appellant was aware of IEC being misused.
Facts- Bill of Entry was filed on 18thSeptember, 2014 by one M/s Aromatech which is a sole proprietary concern of the Appellant– Mr. Umesh Kumar, as the importer of certain goods. The Customs Department, upon examination, realized that the said goods were in excess of the declaration in the Bill of Entry and some goods were, in fact, not declared in the Bill of Entry at all.
Investigation further revealed that on a previous occasion as well, the firm had filed 15 Bills of Entry prior to above referred Bill of Entry by the same importer and in all these cases, the appellant had availed the benefit of Customs exemption notification no. 12/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 without following the conditions of the notification.
Thus, Show Cause Notice dated 25th March, 2015 was served, both on the Appellant herein, Mr. Umesh Kumar and one Mr. Rajat Arora for recovery of differential duty u/s. 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of all the Bills of Entry. The said show cause notice culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 24thFebruary, 2016. Pursuant to the Order-in-Original, the said goods had been seized. Vide the Impugned Order, CESTAT then dismissed both the appeals and held that the demands in the Order-in-Original dated 24th February, 2016 and 4th January, 2018 are completely valid.
