/.,n\ / \l ttl( Yt \v #22 & 23 r .l o/o 27 "@A.20LO Present: Mr. Navneet Panwar with Mr' Piyush ' the appellants. I ' Mr. Mukesh' Anand with Mr' Sailesh ' the respondent. +CUSAA No.2/2010 @ * Kumar, Advocates for' Tiwari, Advocates for (Common @rders) The- officers of. the sllB lnland container Depot, Tughlakabad intqrcepted' five consignments of hand tools lying at i- lnland Container Depot, Patparganj on 28.09.2002. These containers Qelongecl to various fi'rms.. They..were placed under seizure while Pinchnamas were drawn on th'e same day. The aforesaid act was done when the officials got the information that these exporters were attempting to claim excess export incentive.under the D.EPB scheme by .misdeclaring the actual weight and value of the goods. The statements of various persons including the appgllants herein, who acted as Clear:ing House Agents were recorded. The apprehension of I the officials turned out to be correct. lt wasltounO that there was I I misdeclafation in the shipping bill of entries, etc. filed inasmuch as I .quantity and value of the goods sought to be' exported was grossly misdeclared with the purpose tb 'avail higher DEPB or drawback behefits. Show cause notices to these exporters were issued under the i provisions of Customs Act for.confiscation of jthe'goods as well as imposition of penalty. ' Show cause notice was also issued to the d I .a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified J G) appellantsonthegroundtl.iattheyhadconnivedandabetedwith 'these exporters in giving those misdeclarations'' Insofar as the appellantsareconcerned,penaltyoftl,00,000/-qacqwasimposedon both of them .for their involve.ment' ln ma[ino tt"'e appellants responsible for their act of abetment and col;usilon' the Adjudicating ^ Authorities relied upon their own statements rec'orded 'und9r section 1OB of the Customs Act, apart from the stateT."ntl cif other persons on various dates. Significantly, these statements we're never recorded by the appellants. The reading of these'statements clearly bring forth the I -, involvement of these two -appellants, who had cormplete knowledge of ( the misclemeanour on the part of the exporters' I We may only record the most l."tuuuna par;t thereof, which is contained in the show cause notice, though the remaining statements also have . relevant facets incriminatingthetwoappe||antsherein,whichisasunder: a ,' "That since he understood the work of Customs clearance and oreparation of sfriipinq Ootu-ents later on he started making !6;,ifi;; ;ij ri riiiri-Jrt -tr-'" . assista nce of sh ri'Praveen sha rma ; that because the cG"..,i officers had become familiar to him' he also started g"iii"; the examination work done at his own without the assistanciof Shri Praveen Sharr'na; that thereafter ir..,ii'tpruuuun-i'.,ar-u started'giving him work of some more ;;";;;-;i F1";a roott i.e', ti/s Millenium Exports' M/s B'R' En["ipii*t, M/s H.S' -overseas' M/s 'J's' lmpex' M/s clsssie e;;;p "iindustries, M/s Ambev Tradins !o 5.tc';^tlat as regaro the consignment "i niO Tools relating to- M/s +Tb"'11 Trading Co. etc.; that as t"guid the consignt"'it of.Hnad'Tools relating to M/s Ambey rru.:lng cf-and M-/s classic.Group of lndustries which are lying at tLo,' PPG the ceirting in orders .from the fj.bri'-C"mmiisioner of Customs were obtained by him on the ;;;i6t ano packing liits given to him bv shri Praveen' sharma on -rl-.b.zooi' ttrai Cust6ms clearance work of these new parties were given; ihti Praveen Sharma by ShriJai Singh who is also engaged in Customs clearance work; thdt on 16'9'2002 Shri Gulshan Chhabra came to the office of Shri Praveen' ;h;r.;;;J tranoed over new sets of lnvoices and Packing lists of the consignmentt ot Mlt Ambey Trading C-o-.3n!^Y/s Classic Group of Industri;; ;ti'-shri Prive,en :1tl1i^llTi:3 :X:: ;;;#d;:r;";i;;h'- r"; preparatins th+ shippins bill under J t i solitary act, which was interceptgd by ihe customs Authorities and in I " fact even in past also exporters had indulged- inltnese..acts with active I , connivance of the appellants herein, insofar url on" of the appellants '! Deepal< Sharma is concerned. I In these circunrstances, we urL otlthe .opinion that the A /t I l2 DEPA Scheme; that. on going t'trrough the documents he came to . know that the document! were refrecting oin"runi weitht, valuq, destination & name of consigneg ttian sh";; in the docrJments on the basis of which cart-ing broui, ;;;; obtained from the Customs. _Department; that he asked about the difference from shri praveen shaima who stated that since the Customs Departmen! i, .keeping surveillanc" on-- if." consignments of' hand toors'new sEts of pup"ri have been prepared; that he was aware that there was'forgery/fiaud with reference to weiqht and.description in ir-," ."]-rii'gr"rents of Hand tools which -*"r" got ;";;;; by hi,m earrier arso; tht he - usually had doubt thaf"shri Jai sinsh ;4; ;;siJ-in some malpractice and some times he trao arso'askei-dr"i .lui singh about the same;'th.at shri Jai.singh used to chide him saying that "you keep mum and minij yoir o*n business,, and then he used to give me some bxcess money.,, The aforesaid statemeqt also shows that this was not the customs, Excise and service Tax Appeilate Tribrinar righfly upherd the penalty'of {1,00,000/- each imposed upon n{flr these appeilants. i Tltus, no su"bstantial qr"r,,on of law arises for determination in bqth these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. REVA KE{ETR,APAt, J. A[JG0,JsT' 27, ?ALA pmc