Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Ashwani Kr. Jain, Sh. Pawan Kr. Gupta, ... vs Cc on 22 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(82)ECC289
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The adjudicating authority confirmed the following demands and imposed following penalties:
1. M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut.--Demand of Rs. 1,18,17.739.00 and penalty of the same amount under Section 114 of Customs Act & Penalty of Rs. 1.75 (sic) [Rs. 1.75 crore] under Section 112(a) & (b) of Customs Act.
2. Shri A.K. Jain--penalty of Rs. 1.75 crore
3. Sh. Balber Singh Sethi--penalty of Rs. 1.5 crore.
4. Sh. Triloknath Mittal--penalty of Rs. 1.5 crore
5. Sh. Pawan Kr. Gupta--penalty of Rs. 1.5 crore
2. Applicants filed these application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
3. In this case, duty was confirmed and penalties were imposed in respect of ball bearings on the ground that the same had been cleared by mis-declaring the quantity, value and country of origin.
4. Ld. Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut and Sh. A.K. Jain submitted that the adjudicating authority imposed penalties on M/s. Meerut Exim and Sh. A.K. Jain, who is sole proprietor of M/s. Meerut Exim. His contention is that penalty can either be imposed on the proprietor firm or the proprietor. His contention is also that the adjudicating authority imposed penalty under Section 112 as well as under Section 114A of the Customs Act on M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut. His submission is that in view of the proviso to Section 114A of the Customs Act, if the penalty is to be imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, no penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act can be imposed. He also submits that Shri A.K. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Meerut Exim during the investigation, already deposited a sum of Rs. 85,73,139.00. Ld. Sr. counsel also submits that Shri A.K. Jain is now under detention under COFEPOSA.
5. Ld. Sr. Counsel for other applicants submits that Sh. Triloknath Mittal was only an authorised signatory of M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut and he simply submitted the bill of entry on behalf of Sh. A.K. Jain, who was out of country at that time. Their submission is that the allegation against S/Sh. Triloknath Mittal and Pawan Kr. Gupta was that after clearance of the goods, they had to arrange from customs on payment of three per cent commission and both are now under detention under COFEPOSA.
6. Ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority specifically held that S/Shri A.K. Jain and Triloknath Mittal made a plan of smuggling of ball-bearing by mis-declaring the quantity, value and country of origin and Sh. Triloknath Mittal was to sell these smuggled ball bearings on commission basis of Rs. three per ball bearing and Sh. Pawan Kr. Gupta was looking after the business of Sh. Triloknath Mittal's firm i.e. M/s. Royal International and entrusted the job of storing, re-packing and disposing of smuggled goods. In respect of Sh. Balbir Singh Sethi, the contention of the revenue is that the goods were recovered from the godown of M/s. Doab Exim, which belonged to Sh. Balbir Singh Sethi. Shri Balbir Singh Sethi, who is also authorised, signatory, of M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitted that at the time of clearance of goods he did not mention the actual value and quantity of the goods.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The case of the applicants is arguable. Prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty and penalties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, Sh. A.K. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Meerut Exim is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakh, Shri Triloknath Mittal to deposit a sum of Rs. ten lakh, Sh. Balbir Singh Sethi and Sh. Pawan Kr. Gupta to deposit a sum of Rs. five lakh each within a period of 10 weeks. On deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalties is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 22.7.2002.