Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajeev Khatri vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export) on 11 April, 2023
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CUSAA 3/2021 and CM APPL. 5517/2021
RAJEEV KHATRI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Priyanshu Upadhyay and
Mr Amit Attri, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(EXPORT) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Anushree Narain, Standing
Counsel with Ms Nishtha Mittal
and Mr Mayank Srivastava,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 11.04.2023
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.06.2020 (Final Order No. 50682/2020 in Custom's Appeal No. 57543/2018) passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter 'CESTAT') upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter 'the Customs Act') but reducing the amount from ₹34,14,020/- to ₹10,00,000/-.
2. The appellant is a G Card Holder of M/s GND Cargo Movers, which is the Customs Broker registered under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR-2013). The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of M/s Pixel Overseas. The goods imported under the said Bill of Entry were found to be prohibited goods valued at ₹1,36,56,080/-. It is the appellant's case that he had relied upon the instructions of one Mr Deepak Kapoor, known to his employer (M/s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:13.04.2023 GND Cargo Movers), under a bona fide belief that the requisite identification documents of the importer would be provided.
3. The CESTAT found that the appellant was not involved in the illegal import of the prohibited goods in any manner, other than the filing of the Bill of Entry. He had also received no gains from the illegal import. However, the CESTAT found that the appellant was negligent in not verifying the KYC documents of the importer.
4. The appellant contends that he has not done any act which renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. It is also contended that the appellant had no knowledge of the import of the prohibited goods. There is no question of the appellant abetting the act of such import.
5. In the given facts, the following question falls for consideration of this Court:
"Whether, in the given facts, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act can be imposed on the appellant?"
6. List for hearing on 10.05.2023.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 11, 2023 RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:13.04.2023