Page 201 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMP.), ACC, MUMBAI v. BIG VISION PVT. LTD. 879

of M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd., that they were filing settlement applications in
the Settlement Commission.
3. Vide Application No. SC/WZ/CUS/22/23Big Vision/2002 filed by
Shri Shalesh Visaria and M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd., Settlement Commission
has passed Final Order No. 15/2003-Cus., dated 8-4-2003, wherein liability
is admitted for Rs. 58,51,872/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thou-
sand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) and the same has been settled.
The applicant(s) had already paid Rs 57,01,124/- during the course of inves-
tigation. The rest amount has also been reported to be paid on 22-4-2003.
M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shalesh Visaria MD., M/s. Big Vision
Pvt. Ltd., have been granted full immunity from payment of fine, penalty
and interest under the Customs Act, 1962. They were also granted full im-
munity from prosecution in terms of Section 127H of the Customs Act,
1962. In view of the said order, the Show Cause Notice No.
DRI/BZU/F/05/2000, dated 28-1-2002 cannot be sustained. Proceedings
are, therefore, dropped against M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shalesh
Visaria with regard to the levying of fine & imposition of penalty.
4. The Show Cause Notice further sought the imposition of penalty under
Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Santosh Nair.
From the materials available on records, it is evident that he was working
for the suppliers, M/s. Signtech USA Ltd., as Indian representative and he
issued Proforma Invoice as instructed by his principal. From the contents of
Show Cause Notice, it is evident that Shri Santosh Nair did not play any
role in the evasion of the customs duty by M/s. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. The
Show Cause Notice also does not allege the same. In his reply dated 19-2-
2002, Shri Santosh Nair had stated that neither directly or indirectly, he had
gained anything, both monetarily and otherwise by merely signing the
Proforma invoice as per the direction of his superior, the Vice-President of
M/s. Signtech USA. At the time of personal hearing on 23-9-2003, it was re-
iterated by Shri Nair orally as well as in written submission that he had not
contributed in any way in the evasion of duty and he had gained nothing
out of it and also the Settlement Commission has not made any adverse
comments against him. He further requested for a lenient view in the mat-
ter as others in this case had been granted immunity from penalty.
5 Taking all the above facts and observations into consideration, I hereby
drop penal action against Shri Santosh Nair.”
2.1 This order was reviewed by the Board under erstwhile Section
129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and appeal was directed to be filed to Tribunal
on following grounds :-
(i) The Commissioner erred in finding that Shri Santosh Nair did not
play any role in the evasion of the Customs duty by M/s. Big Vision
Pvt. Ltd. Shri Santosh Nair was working as Sales Representative of
M/s. Signtech USA in India and all negotiations including prepara-
tion of Proforma Invoice for the Import of the goods was handled
by him and issued by him.
(ii) The Commissioner ought to have considered the statement of Shri
Santosh Nair and should have considered the facts that he was fully
aware not only of the price list but also value of the same type of
machines imported by other importer at US$ 305000.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  201