Page 238 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

676 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

6. As regards penalty on M/s. Ruby Impex admittedly the goods found
in the containers were other than the goods declared by them. The appellants
have also not been able to show any evidence that the same was a mistake on the
part of the supplier. As such we are of the view that the said appellant is liable
for penalty. Inasmuch as, the duty involved in respect of the Bill of Entry filed by
them was only to the extent of Rs. 81,000/-, though the other imports made by
them were also of different goods i.e. the one declared by them in the first Bill of
Entry, we deem it fit to reduce the penalty to Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, as the penalty
stands imposed on M/s. Ruby Impex, the imposition of separate penalty on the
Proprietor is not called for as the proprietor and the proprietary concern are to be
considered as one and the same. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon Shri Kishan
Lal Chawla, Proprietor of M/s. Ruby Impex stands set aside. As regards penalty
imposed upon the CHA, Freight Forwarding Agent and G. Card Holder, we find
no reasons, in the absence of any evidence to reflect any knowledge upon them,
to impose penalty. Accordingly, the same are set aside and their appeals are al-
lowed.
7. All the appeals are disposed of in above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 676 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]

Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
SAURABH AGGARWAL
Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Final Order No. A/50233/2020-SM(BR), dated 11-2-2020 in Appeal No.
C/50147/2020
Penalty - Improper import of goods - Case against appellant based up-
on retracted statements of co-noticees - Statements of co-noticees unless cor-
roborated in material particulars by independent evidence, do not constitute
legal evidence - No justification for imposition of penalty upon appellant -
Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. [para 4]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Y. Singh, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty
of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Saurabh Ka-
poor, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Y. Singh, Learned Authorised
Representative, it is seen that one consignment of Chinese crackers was imported
by Shri Rahul Sehgal under the cover of Bill of Entry in the name of M/s. Kirat
Sales, Moongfali Mandi, Ludhiana. During the course of investigation, statement

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  238