Custom
TRT-2025-
Cestat New Delhi
Date:-03-08-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Order Date: 3 August 2022
Facts-
- The Appellant, Girish Kumar Singh is working as clearing agent of imported goods. Habib-uz-Zaman approached the appellant for helping for import of marbles.
- Since Habib-uz-Zaman was not having IEC. Therefore, the appellant introduced M/s Ankit Enterprises to Habib-uz-Zaman and accordingly for a consideration agreed to allow Habib-uz-Zaman to import marbles on the IEC of M/s Ankit Enterprises.
- A show cause notice was issued proposing to confiscate the cigarette and imposed penalty on appellant.
- Being aggrieved, this appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order reject the appeal observing that it was this appellant who has arranged the meeting between the IEC holder and Habib-uz-Zaman who is the actual importer.
- Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
Issue-
- Whether penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been correctly imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 of the Customs Act?
Order-
- The Tribunal observed that the only allegation against this appellant is that he introduced the actual importer Habib-uz-Zaman to the IEC holder, who agreed for the use of his IEC on consideration agreed to be provided by Habib-uz-Zaman.
- Thereafter, there is no role of this appellant forthcoming. None of the co-noticee has stated anything against this appellant save and except that he has introduced the importer and the IEC holder.
- Thus, none of the conditions as stipulated in Section 112(b) of the Act is attracted for imposing penalty.
- Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Download Case Law
