© #22 & 23 % 27.08.2010 Present: Mr. Navneet Panwar with Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. Sailesh Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent. {Common Orders) +CUSAA No.2/2010 CUSAA No.3/2010 The officers of the SUB Inland Container Depot, ^ Tughlakabad intercepted five consignmentsof hand tools lying at Inland Container Depot, Patparganj on 28.09.2002. These containers belonged to various firms. They were placed under seizure while Panchnamas were drawn on the 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 DEPB scheme by misdeclaring the actual weight and value of the goods. The statements of various persons including the appellants herein, who ^ acted as Clearing House Agents were recorded. The apprehension of the officials turned out to be correct. It was found that there was m'isdeclaration in the shipping bill of entries, etc. filed inasmuch as quantity and value of the goods sought to be exported was grossly misdeclared with the purpose to avail higher DEPB or drawback benefits. Show cause notices to these exporters were issued under the provisions of Customs Act for confiscation of the goods as well as imposition of penalty. Show cause notice was also issued to the 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 /• b appellants on the ground that they had connived and abeted with these exporters in giving those misdeciarations. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, penalty of?1,00,000/- each was imposed on both of them for their involvement. In making the appellants responsible for their act of abetment and collusion, the Adjudicating Authorities relied upon their own statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, apart from the statements of other persons on various dates. Significantly, these statements were never recorded by the appellants. The reading of these statements clearly bring forth the involvement of these two appellants, who had complete knowledge of the misdemeanour on the part of the exporters. We may only record the most relevant part thereof, which is contained in the show cause notice, though the remaining statements also have relevant facets incriminating the two appellants herein, which is as under: "That since he understood the work of Customs clearance and preparation of shipping documents later on he started mal<ing shipping bills without the assistance of Shri Praveen Sharma; r'" that because the Customs officers had become familiar to him, he also started getting the examination work done at his own without the assistance of Shri Praveen Sharma; that thereafter Shri Praveen Sharma started giving him work of some more exporters of Hand Tools i.e., M/s Millenium Exports, M/s B.R. Enterprises, M/s H.S. Overseas, M/s J.S. Impex, M/s CIsssic Group of Industries, M/s Ambey Trading Co. etc.; that as regard the consignment of Hand Tools relating to M/s Ambey Trading Co. etc.; that as regard the consignment of Hnad Tools relating to M/s Ambey Trading Co. and M/s Classic Group of Industries which are lying at ICD, PPG the carting in orders from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs were obtained by him on the invoices and packing lists given to him by Shri Praveen Sharma on 13.9.2002; that Customs clearance work , of these new parties were given to Shri Praveen Sharma by Shri Jai Singh who is also engaged in Customs clearance work; that on 16.9.2002 Shri Gulshan Chhabra came to the office of Shri Praveen Sharma and handed over new sets of Invoices and Packing lists of the consignments of M/s Ambey Trading Co. and M/s Classic Group of Industries and Shri Praveen Sharma handed over these documents to him for preparating the shipping bill under r T I 1 I G) DEPB Scheme; that on going through the documents he came to know that the documents were reflecting different weitht, value, destination & name of consignee than shown in the documents on the basis of which carting orders were obtained from the Customs Department; that he asked about the difference from Shri Praveen Sharma who stated that since the Customs Department is keeping surveillance on the consignments of hand tools new sets of papers have been prepared;that he was aware that there was forgery/fraudwith reference to weight and description in the consignments of Hand tools which were got examined by him earlier also; tht he usually had doubt that Shri Jai Singh was engaged in some malpracticeand some times he had also asked Shri Jai Singh about the same; that Shri Jai Singh used to chide him saying that "you keep mum and mind your own business" and then he used to give me some excess money." The aforesaid statement also shows that this was not the solitaryact, which was intercepted by the Customs Authoritiesand in fact even in past also exporters had indulged in these acts with active connivance of the appellants herein, insofar as one of the appellants Deepak Sharma is concerned. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly upheld the penalty of ?1,00,000/- each imposed upon both these appellants. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for determination in both these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. AUGUST 27, 2010 pmc REVA KHETRAPAL, J.