Dulraj Uttamchand Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport) (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act set aside in absence of corroborative evidence proving appellant’s role in mis-declaration/ over-invoicing.
Facts- The appellant worked as an Accountant with one Diamond Trading Company M/s. Yash Corporation, Opera House, Mumbai. The appellant worked there for about 4 years up to 2007. During this period, he learnt about the traits of diamond trading. From the middle of 2007 onwards, he started working independently under the name and style of M/s. Roop Impex, from his home.
On the basis of intelligence that Chirayu Impex Pvt. Ltd and Amrapali Exim Pvt. Ltd, were importing diamonds without payment of customs duty, by claiming benefit of exemption Notification by overvaluing the same in order to remit excess foreign exchange overseas, officers of DRI initiated an investigation against the said Firms. The DRI seized consignments belonging to Chirayu Impex Pvt Ltd and Amrapali Exim Pvt. Ltd and opinion of an expert was sought to quantify the value of the goods, which were allegedly found to be over-valued. During the investigation proceedings, statements of various persons were also recorded. Premises of various persons concerned were also searched. The investigation culminated into issuance of a Show Cause Notice to the appellant, amongst the importers and other persons, calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed u/s. 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
