Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sanjay Arora vs New Delhi(Icd Tkd) on 22 March, 2022
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
Customs Appeal No. 50051 of 2019 [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.25/2017 dated 23.11.2017 passed by the
Commissioner of Customs (Export) ICD TKD, New Delhi]
M/s.Sanjay Arora ...Appellant
Proprietor of M/s. Pico Trading Co.
(IEC No.0510073298)
Shop No.9/2A, Kucha Chaudhary,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Exports) ...Respondent
ICD, TKD, New Delhi WITH Customs Appeal No. 51031 of 2019 [DB] [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.25/2017 dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) ICD TKD, New Delhi] Shri Nawal Kishore Singh ...Appellant H-346, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur Extn. Badarpur New Delhi VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Exports) ...Respondent Inland Container Depot, Tuglakabad, New Delhi APPEARANCE:
Shri V V Gautam & Ms. Ekta Kapoor, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DATE OF HEARING: 10.12.2021 DATE OF DECISION: 22.03.2022 2 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] FINAL ORDER NOs. 50269-50270/2022 RACHNA GUPTA:
This order disposes of two appeals arising out of same Order in Original No. 25/2017 dated 23.11.2017 (the order under challenge). The facts relevant for the purpose, in brief, are as follows:-
2. On the basis of an information, a consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 4028721 dated 27.10.2011 in container No.CLHU 8612196 filed by M/s. Pico Trading Company having IEC No.0510073298 was examined on 02.11.2011. The goods were declared as unbranded glassware. However, on physical examination of the said consignment in presence of Shri Sanjay Arora, the proprietor of M/s. Pico Trading Co. the goods were found to be of branded glassware alongwith branded liquor, branded cigarettes, branded ladies purse and other miscellaneous goods. The entire consignment was accordingly, seized on 03.11.2011. Total value thereof was worked out to be Rs.3,24,93,450/-. Shri Sanjay Arora while getting his statement recorded on 03.11.2011 has denied his involvement and stated that his firm has been misused as he is not an importer nor deals in the recovered goods. He was the trader of Batteries.
However, he had applied for his IEC Code with the help of a person, namely, Deepak Kumar Rishi. The documents provided to him were stated to might have been used in the alleged act of importing misdeclared goods.
3
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB]
3. After extensive investigation of examining all concerned, the Department formed an opinion that Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi, (the main conspirator ) Shri Sanjay Arora Prorietor of M/s. Pico Trading Co. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Shri Hemant Sachdeva of M/s.Madhyam Logistics, Shri Sadanand Chowdhary (CHA), Shri Sagar Guleria, Shri Pankaj Guleria, Shri Nawal Kishore Singh & Shri Bhupinder Singh Chadda (CHA) were apparently involved in manipulating the papers leading to mis- declaration and under valuation of the impugned goods which involved the evasion of customs duty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice bearing No.13147 of 24.04.2012 was served upon all the above named persons including the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) proposing the confiscation of the seized goods of the aforementioned value alongwith the recovery of Customs Duty amounting to Rs.1,00,36,067/- from CONCOR. Penalties under Section 112 (a) & 114A upon M/s. Pico and Shri Sanjay Arora and Shri Nawal Kishore Singh and under various Sections on rest of the co-noticees were proposed to be imposed. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
4. The role of Shri Sanjay Arora was alleged in the SCN as follows:-
4
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] "28. Whereas, from the perusal of call details of mobile phone No. 9811414852 used by Shri Sanjay Arora, Proprietor of M/s PICO Trading Ltd. (RUD-XV), called from the service provider, it was observed that Shri Sanjay Arora had made / received calls to from Shri Deepak Rishi, in this regard a chart of such calls is given herein below:-
Date Time From To Duration
of Call
(in
second)
22-10-2011 13:04:12 9811419852 9899389405 166
22-10-2011 13:15:33 9899389405 9811419852 267
22-10-2011 13:36:01 9811419852 9899389405 1
22-10-2011 13:36:10 9899389405 9811419852 1
22-10-2011 13:40:45 9899389405 9811419852 1
22-10-2011 15:14:35 9811419852 9899389405 26
23-10-2011 11:09:13 9899389405 9811419852 0
23-10-2011 11:02:24 9811419852 9899389405 117
23-10-2011 11:09:18 9899389405 9811419852 1
24-10-2011 15:40:18 9811419852 9899389405 599
29. Whereas, to enquire about these calls, summons dated 01.10.2012 for 08.10.2012 was issued to Shri Sanjay Arora, however, neither Shri Sanjay appeared nor he filed any reply.
Thus, from the above, it is clear that Shri Arora was very well in touch with Shri Deepak Rishi and these calls appear to have been made / received in connection with the import of said mis-declared consignment. It is also apparent that the Bill of Entry 5028721 was filed on 27.10.2011 and just before the filing of the said Bill of Entry they were in contact with each other, which is contradiction to his submission made by him in his statement dated 03.11.2011, vide which he had stated that he had received only a message from Shri Deepak Rishi wherein Shri Deepak Rishi had informed his new mobile No. as 8802536779 and after that he had no contact with him. It also appears that Shri Sanjay Arora in association with Shri Deepak Rishi and in co-ordination with other persons willfully and 5 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] intentionally involved in smuggling activities and attempted to import huge quantity of mis-declared/ undeclared / concealed goods with an intention to evade payment of proper and correct duty on the goods detailed in Annexure-I to this Show Cause Notice.
30. Whereas from the perusal of the phone details of Shri Sanjay Arora, it also appears that he was very much aware of the said consignment covered under B/E 5028721 dated 27.10.2011 and he alongwith Shri Deepak Rishi devised this modus operandi of getting these mis-declared items cleared from Customs so that in case the same is caught by Customs he would dis-own the consignment to mis-lead the investigation, as he has done in this case. Further, it appears that to carry out this illegal trade Shri Deepak Rishi played the key role by roping in other persons in the chain, even the charges of shipping line were got paid from the account of M/s.Madhyam Logistics and the partners of the said company also helped him in this. Thus, the contention of the Shri Sanjay Arora that the IEC of M/s. PICO Trading has been mis- utilised appears to be wrong."
5. The role played by Shri Sanjay Arora found in the impugned order is as follows:-
"From the facts as narrated in the show cause notice and brought out during investigations, it is quite evident that PICO Trading Co. (Noticee 1) is a proprietorship concern of Shri Sanjay Arora (Noticee 2). They are engaged in trading of battery charges from their premises located at Shop No 9/2A Kuncha Chowdhary, Chandhi Chowk. For purpose of making imports Noticee 2 applied for IEC in the month of December 2010 with the help of Shri Deepak Rishi (Noticee 3) to whom he was introduced by Mr. Sandeep Suri (as mentioned in the statement dated 03.11.2011 of Noticee 2 whereas Show Cause Notice mentions Mr. Deepak Suri). During a meeting held between Noticee 2 & Notices 3 in Connaught Place Noticee 3 asked Noticee 2 to provide him certain documents such as Letter head of his shop on which the name "PICO Trading Co" is printed, copy of passport, copy of bank statement and copy of PAN Card. Thereafter Noticee 2 provided Noticee 3 all the documents as asked for along with the fees for getting the IEC No. After sometime in the month of December 6 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] 2010, Noticee 2 was informed by the Noticee 3 that the IEC for his Proprietorship Concern has been issued and will be received by him in due course. In month of January 2011, Noticee 2 had received an envelope containing his IEC No. However even after the receipt of IEC, Noticee 2 has not made any imports. There are certain telephonic conversations between Noticee 2 and Noticee 3, which is evident from the details of call records, made in respect of the mobile numbers available with them. The details of such call as indicated in the show cause notice para 28 are as follows:
Table Details of calls made by Noticee 2 to Noticee 3. The B/E was filed on 27.10.2011.
Date Duration
Time From To (seconds)
22-10-2011 13:04:12 9811419852 9899389405 166
(Noticee-2) (Noticee-3)
22-10-2011 13:15:33 9899389405 9811419852 267
(Noticee-3) (Noticee-2)
22-10-2011 13:36:01 9811419852 9899389405 1
(Noticee-2) (Noticee-3)
22-10-2011 13:36:10 9899389405 9811419852 1
(Noticee-3) (Noticee-2)
22-10-2011 13:40:45 9899389405 9811419852 1
(Noticee-3) (Noticee-2)
22-10-2011 15:14:35 9811419852 9899389405 26
(Noticee-2) (Noticee-3)
23-10-2011 11:02:24 9811419852 9899389405 117
(Noticee-2) (Noticee-3)
23-10-2011 11:09:13 9899389405 9811419852 0
(Noticee-3) (Noticee-2)
23-10-2011 11:09:18 9899389405 9811419852 1
(Noticee-3) (Noticee-2)
24-10-2011 15:40:18 9811419852 9899389405 599
(Noticee-2) (Noticee-3)
Noticee 1 and Noticee 2 have contested the role assigned to them on the ground that they are innocent victims of fraud committed on them by Noticee 3 and they were in no way concerned with the illegal importation of these goods. None of the person associated with the filing of B/E has identified or have stated that even a single document in relation to this import have been provided by them. In their submissions and during the course of personal hearing they 7 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] have submitted that they came into contact with Shri Deepak Rishi (Noticee 3) who helped them in getting the IEC No. during the month of December 2010. However they never imported any goods and the IEC, received by them was never used. However Notice 3, who was aware of their IEC and had fraudulently obtained various documents such as Letter head of PICO Trading Co, photocopy of Bank Statement, photocopy of Passport, and copy of PAN Card etc. from them for helping them to get IEC. These papers were used by them for making the fraudulent import later on. They have also filed an FIR in the jurisdictional Police Thana in respect of the fraud committed by them. In entire investigation conducted, no one has even named them or identified them as importers of the mis-declared goods, even while admitting their respective roles in the importation of the said goods. Further they submitted that since noticee 2 is proprietor of Noticee 1, even if penalty is to be imposed on them, no separate penalty can be imposed on both of them in view of the following decisions:
Saccha Saudha Pedhi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2015 (328) ELT 609 (T) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Gyan Chand Jain [2015 (321) ELT 199 (T) Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. Central Excise [2013 (287) ELT 54 (P & H)] Vijaybhav Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2014 (313) ELT 506 (T)] Kashinath Das Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (2014 (307) ELT 816 (T) Deepak Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur (2012 (328) ELT 609 (T) Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. Vinayak Drawings [2011 (268) ELT 410 (T) Bimal Kumar Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2011 (70) ELT 280 (T)] Munjani Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2011-(265) ELT 396 (T) From the facts as stated above it appears that Noticee 1 & Noticee 2 had lended the details of their company etc., to Noticee 3, for purpose of assistance in obtaining the IEC.8
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] However Noticee 3 has in connivance with other Noticees, has misused the such details for causing fraudulent imports. This fact is further corroborated by the fact that Noticee 1/ Noticee 2 is in business of battery chargers and the goods in the container are declared as glassware and on examination found to be branded glassware, branded whisky, branded cigarettes and miscellaneous goods. The goods found in the container are other than the goods in which Noticee 1/ Noticee 2 deals. The facts as narrated clearly point that Noticee 1/ Noticee 2 is victim of identity theft whereby his identity has been used to cause the fraudulent imports. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain. Because of the growing number of cases of criminal identity theft, it's important for individuals to be aware that their identities could be used to commit crimes beyond fraudulent financial transactions. Noticee 3 has in his statement stated that documents in relation to filing of B/E No. 5028721 had been provided to him by Noticee 10, whereas Noticee has categorically denied of having any acquaintance with either Noticee 1 or Noticee 2. It is also an admitted fact that Noticee 2 has lended the details of his company to Noticee 3 for purpose of seeking his assistance in getting IEC. Noticee 2 has admitted that he was in touch with Noticee 3 at about the time when the Bill of Entry to cover up the fraudulent imports was filed. This fact is also corroborated by the call records. Even if it is agreed that Noticee 1/ Noticee 2 had not imported the said goods themselves and also they were no way concerned with the importation of the said goods, the fact that goods have been imported under their identity and IEC cannot be denied. In my view by lending his identity to Noticee 3, along with the documents pertaining to his company, Noticee 2 has become party to the fraud being committed by the Noticee 3 and is liable to penalty under Section 112
(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However in view of the case laws as stated above I would not propose separate penalties on the proprietor and proprietorship concern."
6. The role of Shri Nawal Kishore Singh was alleged in the SCN as follows:-
9
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] "Whereas, from the perusal of Call details of Mobile No.9899389405 used by Shri Deepak Rishi, it appeared that following calls have been made/received on Mobile No.9811628751 used by Shri N.K Singh, Mobile No.9811025229 used by Shri Bhupinder Singh & the Telephone Nos.011-41015892 & 011-41015892 pertaining to CHA firm M/s Continental Cargo Services, having it office at C-6-6161, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-11 (owned by Shri Bhupinder Singh), by Shri Deepak Rishi during the relevant period.
Sl. Telephone Telephone Date Time Duration
No. No./Mobile No./Mobile (in
No. No. second)
1. 01141015892 9899389405 29.09.2011 12:00 63
2. 01141015892 9899389405 29.09.2011 13:57:10 14
3. 01141015892 9899389405 29.09.2011 13:57:50 54
4. 01141015892 9899389405 29.09.2011 15:01:26 20
5. 01141015892 9899389405 29.09.2011 15:19:41 47
6. 9899389405 01141015892 29.09.2011 15:22:26 13
7. 01141015891 9899389405 01.10.2011 15:05:29 19
8. 01141015891 9899389405 01.10.2011 17:03:05 30
9. 01141015892 9899389405 03.10.2011 14:25:28 57
10. 01141015892 9899389405 03.10.2011 18:08:04 49
11. 01141015892 9899389405 04.10.2011 12:07:28 38
12. 9899389405 9811628751 10.10.2011 16:23:15 13
13. 9811025229 9899389405 30.09.2011 17:37:50 93
From the above call details, it appears that Shri N.K Singh as well as Shri Bhupinder Singh were very well in touch with Shri Deepak Rishi during the relevant period for providing of fraudulent papers on behalf of M/s PICO Trading.10
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] 38.1 Whereas, Shri Bhupinder Singh was asked during the statement dated 20.01.2012 about such calls made/ received on his office telephone numbers and on his mobile number, he stated that such calls from his landline numbers might have been made by Shri N.K Singh and call from his mobile No. to Shri Deepak Rishi on 30.09.2011, he does not remember and the same might have been a returned call. However, Shri N.K Singh was also asked in his statement dated 20.09.2012 whether the said calls from the office Nos. have been made by him to Shri Deepak Rishi as stated by Shri Bhupinder Singh to which he replied that he does not remember having made any such calls to Shri Deepak Rishi on his mobile No. From the above, it appears that Shri N.K Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh are also involved in this conspiracy and in attempt of smuggling of goods seized."
7. The role of Shri Nawal Kishore Singh found in the impugned order is as follows:-
"Shri Bhupinder Singh is in the field of Custom Clearance of goods since long and was himself having CHA Licence. Since his licence was suspended on account of certain enquiries being made, he was undertaking the work of custom clearance on the basis of the CHA Licence of his nephew Shri Rupinder Singh. He was having acquaintance with Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi (master- mind in the entire issue) since long and was constantly in touch with him through the filing of documents with Customs. Shri N K Singh was employee with Shri Bhupinder singh and developed acquaintance with Shri Deepak Rishi there. As per Shri Deepak Rishi the documents in respect of these imports were handed over to him by Shri N K Singh. Even in the past the trio had affected the clearance of goods in similar manner in name of M/s. B & K Traders etc. Shri Deepak has in his statement categorically stated that Shri Bhupinder Singh and Shri N K Singh would not disclose the place of delivery of the goods cleared to him but take the name and mobile no of transporter/ driver from him after the clearance of goods and then get the goods delivered themselves at the chosen location. The fact that Shri Deepak Rishi was in touch with them is further established by the call records of Shri Deepak and also has been admitted by both Shri 11 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] Bhupinder Singh and Shri N K Singh. From the facts and evidence as available on record it is quite evident that the entire conspiracy to undertake fraudulent imports against IEC of some other person has been hatched between Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi, Shri Bhupinder Singh and Shri N K Singh. Shri Deepak being responsible for getting the fake IEC in name of M/s PICO Trading Co and Shri Bhupinder Singh & Shri N K Singh getting the goods and papers for illegal imports. Since these two have actively participated in the act of illegal/ fraudulent importation they are hence liable for penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962."
8. We have heard Shri V. V. Gautam & Ms. Ekta Kapoor, ld. Counsels for the appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar, ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that from the statements of all concerned as were recorded at the time of investigation, it is clearly evident that the documents of firm M/s. Pico Trading Co. have been manipulated for the impugned illegal imports by the co-noticees. There was no knowledge nor any consent of the Proprietor of said firm, namely, Sanjay Arora/the appellant for the same who otherwise has never been the importer except that he applied for the IEC Code. He otherwise deals in the trade of batteries. It is further submitted that the appellant is rather the victim of identity theft. The Original Adjudicating Authority despite appreciating Sanjay Arora as the victim of identity theft still has imposed penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 112 (a) and (q) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also submitted that appellant had rather lodged an FIR for his Company alleging that documents pertaining to its 12 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] firm have illegally been used in the impugned import. The FIR for commission of offence of forgery, cheating and fraud was got registered by appellant Sanjay Arora for himself and his Proprietorship M/s. Pico Trading Company. The order of imposition of penalty upon him is accordingly prayed to be set aside.
10. On behalf of Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, the another appellant it is submitted that Shri Deepak Rishi was never known to him except that he was in touch with his employer Shri Bhupinder Singh and accordingly had collected certain documents for said Shri Deepak Rishi during the impugned period. Except this there is no evidence on record proving his involvement in the alleged illegal import. Order of imposition of penalty against him is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed.
11. To rebut these submissions ld. DR has impressed upon the meticulous investigation as has been conducted in the present case. The meticulous effort of the original adjudicating authority to appreciate the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence on record due opportunity of cross examination as also was provided to the concerned noticees. Nothing cogent in their favour came out of the said cross examination. There is otherwise sufficient corroboration in the testimonies of all the noticees proving the alleged import of misdeclared and undervalued goods by the firm, namely, M/s. Pico Trading Co. 13
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] which the Sanjay Arora as its Proprietor and involvement of all others for importing goods illegally. The act of all the co- noticees is nothing less than that of smuggling, that too, of all luxurious branded goods misdeclaring all of them as unbranded glassware. The order is therefore prayed to be upheld and appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the entire record specifically the call details with respect to the mobile number in the name of Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi, in the form of statements of all the co-noticees to the Show Cause Notice. The other documents on record and the order under challenge, we observe and hold as follows:-
For M/s. Pico Trading and Shri Sanjay Arora
13. It is an admitted fact that the import export code (IEC) was applied for by M/s. Pico Trading Co. in December, 2010 with the help of Shri Deepak Rishi. All relevant documents were provided by Shri Sanjay Arora the proprietor of M/s. Pico Trading Co. to said Shri Deepak. Admittedly, the said IEC Code was received in the month of January, 2011. The consignment in question entered into Indian Territory in the month of October, 2011. Though as per Shri Sanjay Arora, he had no relationship with Shri Deepak Rishi and he was introduced to him through Mr.Sandeep Suri, but the call detail record of said Deepak Rishi, is sufficient proof that Sanjay Arora was in regular communication with Mr. Deepak, that too, during the relevant period for the impugned imports. No explanation is produced by 14 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] Sanjay Arora about several calls being made between him and Mr. Deepak in the month of October, 2011 that too for the durations as long as of 599 seconds. The only evidence relied upon is the FIR lodged by Shri Sanjay Arora but the said FIR is after the import and after Shri Sanjay Arora had joined the investigation. The possibility of said FIR as an after-thought to manipulate defence cannot be ruled out.
14. Further, no outcome of the investigation in the said FIR have been brought on record, though original adjudicating authority has held Shri Sanjay Arora to be the victim of identity theft whereby his identity has been used to cause the fraudulent imports. But his association with Shri Deepak Rishi is very much established on record. From the testimony of all the noticees herein the transaction which appears in corroboration is that Shri Deepak Rishi was the mastermind for the impugned imports and every other noticee has acted at his instance. Though many of them have pleaded no knowledge nor their consent but there is no positive evidence to corroborate the said defence. On the contrary the acknowledged participation of everybody involved herein is sufficient to prove their intent with all their knowledge and consent to participate in the impugned illegal imports. Hence, we are of the opinion that Sanjay Arora has not been the victim of identity theft. He rather allowed his papers to be used by Shri Deepak Rishi. Hence, he cannot walk out of being called as abater/ conspirator. Penalty upon him under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 has therefore rightly been imposed. We are 15 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] in agreement with the original adjudicating authority that after imposition of penalty on proprietor the simultaneous penalty on his firm for the same offence has been correctly dropped. The order under challenge to that extent stands upheld. For appellant Nawal Kishore Singh
15. Admittedly, Nawal Kishore Singh has been the employee of Shri Bhupinder Singh. There is sufficient admission and acknowledgement on record to the fact that Shri Bhupinder Singh was himself having a CHA License but the license was suspended on account of enquiries being made against him. However, he was still involved in the business of customs clearance on the basis of CHA License of his nephew Shri Rupinder Singh. It has also been deposed in corroboration that Shri Bhupinder Singh had a very close acquaintance with Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi since long and he has constantly being filing documents with Customs for Shri Deepak Kumar Rishi. Appellant Shri Nawal Kishore Singh was the employee of Shri Bhupinder Kumar who used to transact the document between Bhupinder Singh and Deepak Kumar Rishi. From the statement of Deepak Rishi himself, it is apparent that he alongwith Bhupinder Singh and Nawal Kishore Singh used to get goods cleared in the similar manner as of the present case and earlier also the trio had committed the similar act in the name of M/s. B.K.Traders.
16. The modus operandi for operating such imports has also been disclosed by said Deepak Rishi in his statement as was 16 C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB] recorded on 30.11.2011. He has specifically named Nawal Kishore Singh to rather be the mastermind of the impugned import and that Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh had clear knowledge about the consignment to contain branded luxury items instead of unbranded glassware. Shri Nawal Kishore Singh has not brought anything on record to falsify said testimony. His association with Deepak Rishi rather stands corroborated from the testimony of Bhupinder Singh even the call records of Shri Deepak Rishi proved association of Nawal Kishore Singh with Deepak Rishi. We do not find any infirmity in the findings against Nawal Kishore as arrived at by original adjudicating authority. We are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence as well as facts on record to prove that the entire conspiracy to undertake fraudulent imports against IEC of M/s. Pico Trading Company has been hatched between Deepak Kumar Rishi, Shri Bhupinder Singh and Shri Nawal Kumar Singh and rest of the co- noticees had due knowledge of the entire transaction as similar used to be the modus operandi of Shri Deepak Rishi at the earlier occasions also. As already held above even Sanjay Arora is not the victim of identity theft. He sent his documents for the impugned imports and was constantly in touch with Shri Deepak Rishi during the period of import. Hence the findings against the second appellant, namely, Shri Nawal Kishore Singh are also hereby upheld. We refrain ourselves from any findings as far as CONCOR is concerned, a separate appeal of them being pending consideration.
17
C/50051 & 51031 / 2019 [DB]
17. As a result of entire above discussion, we hereby uphold the order under challenge except for the separate penalty on M/s. Pico Trading Co. Consequent thereto, both the appeals stand dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2022] (P.V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita