Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. During the investigations statements of four IEC holders, who were found existing, including the present appellant were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appellant stated that he was a man of meager means, but had floated firm and obtained IEC in the name of the firm at behest of others. He stated that he had merely lent the name and IEC of his firm for monetary consideration and that he had got nothing to do with the goods imported in the name of his firm. He had neither placed orders for these goods nor had he negotiated those goods, nor even had sent any remittances abroad from his bank account towards purchase price of the impugned goods. Appellant did not claim ownership of the goods imported in the name of his firm and asked for those goods to be dealt with as per law. Further enquiries revealed that Shri Kirit Shrimankar had used the names of firms/companies and Import Export Codes to cause import of consignments in question.

Customs Appeal No. 50271 of 2021 Anjana International. He got him introduced to Mr. Kirit Shrimankar some time in November 2012 and on his advise appellant applied for IEC in the name of M/s. Aashavi Enterprises.

7. Shri Sanjay Kundra promised appellant to give Rs.20,000/- per import consignment in lieu of using his name and his IEC Code. Looking to the lucrative offer and to have legal income that the appellant gave consent. For the same reason of arrangement being lucrative appellant through Shri Ankit Mehta (CHA) got another Import Export Code in the name of his employee Shri Ram Mehra as proprietor of M/s. Dhruv Enterprise. This was also done as per suggestion of Shri Sanjay Kundra. Appellant did receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Shri Kirit Shivmankar (from Shri Sanjay Kundra's office, out of which a sum of Rs.7,500/- was given to the said employee, Shri Ram Mehra. It is further submitted that the, appellant never signed any document, nor placed any order to import any goods. He was absolutely ignorant about the consignments imported under his IEC. There are no allegations that this appellant was involved directly or indirectly in the fraudulent imports mad by Shri Kirit Shrimankar. The penalty of Rs.25 lakhs is imposed upon the appellant only for having allowed use of Import Export Code for consideration and thus is highly disproportionate. It is rather liable to be set aside for the above mentioned reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions:

8. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative at the outset has reiterated the findings arrived at by adjudicating authority below in the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellant in the instant case is proprietor of M/s. Aashvi Enterprises one of importing firm of syndicate and co- noticee of the said show cause notice. The examination of live import consignment of the appellant revealed mis-declaration of description and value. The appellant also floated another firm M/s. Dhruv Enterprises in the name of one of his employee Shri Ram Mehra and also procured Import Export Code. The appellants knowingly and intentionally were letting the Import Export Code to be used by the other person/s for monetary benefits.

14. I observe from the facts of the present case that the appellant has made an admission to have voluntarily let its Import Export Code to Shri Kirit Shrimankar. The said IEC has been used by said Shri Kirit Shrimankar and his syndicate for committing such acts/omissions which have rendered the imported goods liable to be confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Admissions are the best evidences which need no further proof. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Customs Appeal No. 50271 of 2021 case reported as AIR 1952 SC 214, wherein it was held that the conventional statement of the accused if found to be voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction. The Hon'ble Court elaborated that even if such statement is retracted, the court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or coercion and whether the confession is truthful. If found to be voluntary and truthful, inculpatury portion of retracted confession could be relied upon to base the conviction. In the present case apparently and admittedly there is no retraction of his statement by the appellant. The statement is clear admission for lending the Import Export Code of the appellant and of the firm in the name of his employees by him to Shri Kirit Shrimankar. This was admittedly at the instance of freight forwarder Shri Sanjay Kundra, the friend of the appellant, to gain lucrative incentives. Irrespective the appellant is held to have no knowledge of imports made by Shri Kirit Shrimankar and his syndicate by resorting the misdeclaration and suppression (as observed by the original adjudicating authority below), the appellant has admitted to obtain the Import Export Code wrongly declaring him to be a proposed importer/exporter knowingly that he shall not be indulging in the said business rather he shall be lending the code in his name to be used by others.