Page 309 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 955
Penalty (Contd.)
imposed penalty even when the investigations against the appellant still
pending in the present case - Any act performed by appellant in respect
of any other goods which may be similar/same/identical, but not the
subject matter of the proceedings cannot be reason for imposition of
penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - However, number of
persons including the present appellant not being investigated in this
case, and the investigation being kept open, this order setting aside the
penalty herein should not be treated as exoneration of the appellant in
the proceedings which follow on completion of investigations against
those persons — A.T. Maideen v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak
(Tri. - Chan.) ...................................... 587
— for misdeclaration of value/description of food supplements
containing/not containing beef imported with paper imposable equal to
amount of duty evaded - Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 — Him
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi ICD TKD Export (Tri. - Del.) ......... 109
— for misuse of IE Code - Reduction of - Fraudulent import of chemicals in
name of IE Code lent by proprietor of company for consideration - Rajesh
Pravinchandra Joshi, Proprietor of M/s. Ravi Enterprises; accepting that
IEC applied with intention to lend same for monetary consideration -
Also, NOC prepared by importer in name of M/s. Ravi Enterprises so
that amendment in IGM to change name of importer, could be carried
out - Involvement of proprietor limited to extent of lending IEC to other
importers for consideration - Penalty levied cannot be comparable to
penalty imposed on actual perpetrators of offence - Penalty imposed
reduced to ` 20,000 - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Naresh Dudhela v.
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II (Tri. - Mumbai) ............... 881
— imposed on employees of importer company, scope of appeal to Tribunal
when importer’s case pending before High Court - See under APPEAL .... 849
— Imposition of - Exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. based on
Indian origin of goods, had no duty implication - Such declaration in bill
of entry has no consequence - Hence penalty is not sustainable under
Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General
(Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) .......................... 849
— Imposition of - Finding of overvaluation based on proximate value
without any record that importer was beneficiary of money flows -
HELD : Penalty was unsustainable - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation
(Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 112 of
Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai
(Tri. - Mumbai) ..................................... 849
— Imposition of - Incorrect statement in import general manifest with
fraudulent intention - Importer is not liable to penalty - Sections 30(iii)
and 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 — Vallabh Wool Industries v. Commr. of Cus.
(Export), Nhava Sheva (Tri. - Mumbai) .......................... 888
— Imposition of - On employees of importer for allegedly fabricating
purchase order that was not required to be furnished with bills of entry -
HELD : Penalty was unsustainable - Document did not have any
significance under Sections 14, 46 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 — S.
Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ......... 849
— Imposition of penalty on the Director of a Company without making the
Company a party to the proceeding not justifiable and accordingly set
aside - More so, when the confiscation of the seized goods is set aside,
penalization thereof is not maintainable upon the appellants herein -
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  309