Damodar Nayak Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) (CESTAT Mumbai)
In absence of any positive knowledge, penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on co-noticee cannot be sustained just because they knew the main accused
CESTAT Strikes Down Order-In-Original Issued Under Section 112(B) of The Customs Act on Co-Noticee Just Because They Were Relatives of The Main Accused.
Summary of Judgment
1. Appeal is filled challenging O-I-O CAOno.29/2012/CAC/CC/BKS dtd 25/06/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, wherein a penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under section 112(b) of Customs Act 1962.
2. Investigation was initiated from 18/10/2007 against M/s Sumira Plastics for diversion of good imported under the DEEC Scheme, which were diverted without fulfillment of export obligation.
3. SCN dtd 24.09.2019 was issued against M/s Sumira Plastics and other 7 Co-noticee.
4. Appellant is one of the co-noticee. Appellant did Job work for conversion of Raw material into final products.
5. The appellant is the brother in law of M/s Sumira Plastics and purchased some machinery long before this issue raised on the basis of this section 112(b) of customs act 1962 was invoked.
6. Custom appeal no 907 of 2012 one of the other co-noticee No4 (SHRI Kumar SAYANI) which has similar issue decided in favor of that notice on 13/05/2022.
