Page 111 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v. TRINETRA IMPEX PVT. LTD. 333

REPRESENTED BY : Shri Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms.
Suhani Mathur, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Tarun Chawla, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)]. - The present appeal under Sec-
tion 130 of Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the Final Order No. 55775-
55776/2017, dated 10-8-2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Ap-
pellate Tribunal in Appeal No. C/53509/2015 whereby the appeal of M/s.
Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd./respondent has been allowed and the penalties im-
posed under Section 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter as
‘Act’) on the Director of the respondent have been set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. is a
holder of Customs House Agent (hereinafter as “CHA”) license issued under
Section 9(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004. One M/s.
Anurag Trading Co. imported various goods such as vulcanizing press ma-
chines, hydraulic splitting machines, hydraulic flashing machines, hydraulic
shaving machines, etc. for supplying the same to Ordnance Equipment Factory
(OEF), Kanpur. At the time of filing of Bills of Entries, the importer claimed ex-
emption from customs duty under the Notification No. 39/96-Cus., dated 23-7-
1996 on the strength of Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) purport-
edly issued by OEF, Kanpur. Subsequently, Customs Department received an
input from the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory
Board, Kolkata through the Chief Vigilance Officer, C.B.E. & C., New Delhi in-
forming them that the CDECs filed by M/s. Anurag Trading Company had not
been issued by OEF, Kanpur and that the importer had committed a fraud. On
the basis of the aforesaid information, the Customs Department carried out in-
vestigations and pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 8-7-2011 was issued
with respect to the Bills of Entries pertaining to the goods imported by M/s.
Anurag Trading Company without payment of duty on the basis of forged Cus-
toms Duty Exemption Certificates. Under the said show cause notice, penalties
were also proposed against Sh. Kailash Gupta, Director of M/s. Trinetra Impex
Pvt. Ltd., CHA/respondent. On further investigation, another show cause notice
dated 6-3-2013 was issued in respect of 39 Bills of Entries filed by M/s. Anurag
Trading Co. for the period between 14-8-1996 to 23-7-2006. In the said show
cause notice as well, penalties were proposed against Mr. Kailash Gupta, Manag-
ing Director of the respondent CHA. The aforesaid show cause notices were ad-
judicated vide common Order-in-Original No. 09-10/2015/SRB/Commissioner
(Import), dated 30-6-2015 and a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs under Section 112(a) of Act
was imposed on Mr. Kailash Gupta, Managing Director of CHA in respect of
show cause notice dated 8-7-2011; and a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed un-
der Section 112(b) and Rs. 5 lacs under Section 114AA of the Act in respect of
show cause notice dated 6-3-2013. For the sake of completeness, it would be ap-
propriate to note that under the afore-noted Order-in-Original, the demand and
recovery of customs duty and penalties were also ordered against the importer-
M/s. Anurag Trading Company. However, since the present appeal pertains on-
ly to the CHA, we are confining our probe into the impugned order to the extent
it pertains to the penalties set aside against the respondent.
3. In the Order-in-Original dated 30-6-2015, it was held that it was im-
perative on part of the CHA to ensure that only valid and genuine exemption
certificates were submitted with the Customs Department. It was held that since
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  111