Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 07, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31482

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/31482
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jul 07, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pawan Kumar Gupta

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(161)ELT828TriDel

Excerpt

1. appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order where the penalty of rs. 1,50,00,000/- each was imposed under section 112(b) of the customs act, 1962.2. brief facts of the case are that shri a.k. jain, proprietor of m/s.meerut exim made import of ball bearings and got the same cleared by mis-declaring the value and quantity to evade customs duty. the imported ball bearings were stored in the premises of m/s. dooab exim.the ball bearings were recovered from the premises of m/s. dooab exim.shri pawan kumar gupta, appellant was also present there who was sorting out the ball bearings. a show cause notice was issued to the present appellant as well as to other notices on the ground that the ball bearings were got cleared by misdeclaring the value and quantity of the ball bearings and shri pawan kumar gupta and shri trilok nath mittal to sell the ball bearings in the local market on the commission basis. both the appellants were to get rs. 1.50 p each bearing sold in the local market. the adjudicating authority imposed the penalties under section 112(b) of the customs act on the ground that both the appellants were dealing with the goods which are liable for confiscation.4. the contention of the appellant is that the ball bearings in question were imported by shri a.k. jain and the present appellants were not aware of the nature of the goods. in the case of shri trilok nath mittal, the contention of the learned counsel is that the goods were never received by him nor he had dealt with the ball bearings in question in any manner which make him liable for penal action under section 112(b) of the customs act.5. the contention of the revenue is that appellants were aware of the fact that the ball bearings in question were cleared from the customs authority by misdeclaring the value and quantity and shri pawan kumar gupta appellant was present in the premises of m/s. dooab exim at the time of visit of customs officer and he was sorting out ball bearings for.....

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order where the penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- each was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri A.K. Jain, Proprietor of M/s.

Meerut Exim made import of Ball Bearings and got the same cleared by mis-declaring the value and quantity to evade customs duty. The imported Ball Bearings were stored in the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim.

The Ball Bearings were recovered from the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim.

Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, appellant was also present there who was sorting out the Ball Bearings. A show cause notice was issued to the present appellant as well as to other notices on the ground that the Ball Bearings were got cleared by misdeclaring the value and quantity of the Ball Bearings and Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta and Shri Trilok Nath Mittal to sell the Ball Bearings in the local market on the commission basis. Both the appellants were to get Rs. 1.50 P each Bearing sold in the local market. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the ground that both the appellants were dealing with the goods which are liable for confiscation.

4. The contention of the appellant is that the Ball Bearings in question were imported by Shri A.K. Jain and the present appellants were not aware of the nature of the goods. In the case of Shri Trilok Nath Mittal, the contention of the learned Counsel is that the goods were never received by him nor he had dealt with the Ball Bearings in question in any manner which make him liable for penal action under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

5. The contention of the Revenue is that appellants were aware of the fact that the Ball Bearings in question were cleared from the Customs authority by misdeclaring the value and quantity and Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta appellant was present in the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim at the time of visit of Customs Officer and he was sorting out Ball Bearings for further supply to Shri Trilok Nath Mittal. Therefore, both were liable for penal action.

6. In this case the allegation against the appellants was that they were dealing in the goods which were liable for confiscation.

Appellants were not challenging the order of confiscation. The Section 112(b) of the Customs Act provides that any person who acquires possession or any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any manner dealing with the goods which he knows or has reason to believe, shall be liable for penalty. The allegation against Shri Trilok Nath Mittal is that he was to acquire the possession of the goods in question for further sale in the market. There is no allegation that he has acquired possession. In these circumstances, we find that Shri Trilok Nath Mittal had not dealt in any manner with the goods in question. Hence, is not liable for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The imposing of penalty on Shri Trilok Nath Mittal is not sustainable, hence set aside.

7. In respect of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, we find that he was present at the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim and was sorting out the Ball Bearings and he was to issued Challans in the name of bogus Firms and get impugned Bearings despatched to different buyers. In this situation, we find that Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta was dealing in disposing of the Ball Bearings in question which was liable for confiscation. Hence, he is liable for penal action under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, he is not importer of the goods. He has to get only Rs. 1.50 P as commission on the disposal of the goods. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only), otherwise the impugned order is upheld in respect of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta.

8. Appeal filed by Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta is disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, N T C.N.B.