Rahul Gupta Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
The CESTAT Delhi considered an appeal challenging the imposition of a penalty of ₹10 lakh under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a salaried employee, contended that he was not engaged in any trading or commercial activity and had merely introduced prospective buyers to an employee of the main noticee. He denied any role in the procurement, storage, transportation, handling or purchase of the goods.
The proceedings arose from an investigation conducted by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), which alleged that the main noticee had clandestinely removed M.S. Ingots from its SEZ unit without payment of applicable customs duty. During the investigation, searches were conducted and documents and electronic records were seized. The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in which it was alleged that he had arranged sales of certain consignments on a commission basis and received commission in cash. The Department relied upon a private ledger, computer printouts seized from the premises of the main noticee and the appellant’s statement to allege that he had purchased goods clandestinely removed without payment of customs duty, thereby attracting penalty under Section 112(b).
