CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH-COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50455 OF 2024 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-275- 2023-24 dated 23/01/2024 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals)

CGST, Customs and Central Excise, Indore]

M/S MARINA ENTERPRISES ……APPELLANT Proprietor Shri Anthony Mathews, 49, Kothari Market, Do Batti Ratlam (MP) 457001 Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ….RESPONDENT INDORE B-Zone, 3^rd Floor, Village Pipliakumar, Nipania,Indore Madhya Pradesh -452010 APPEARANCE:

Shri Jitendra Singh and Shri Mayank Sharma, Advocates for the appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, Authorized Representative for the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50084 /2026 DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 19.01.2026 P.V. SUBBA RAO M/s. Marina Enterprises¹ filed this appeal to assail the order dated 23.1.2024² passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Indore upholding the Order in Original dated 6.3.2020³ passed by the Joint Commissioner deciding the proposals made in the Show

1. Marble city

2. Impugned order

3. OIO Cause Notice dated 26.4.2018⁴ issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence⁵

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records.

3. The appellant is the IEC holder who imported four containers through Inland Container Depot⁶, Indore and declared in two Bills of Entry dated 30.10.2017 and 31.10.2017 to contain ‘Wanli Brand’ Chinese Tyres. Acting on specific intelligence, DRI examined the contents of the containers and found that against the declared 4,825 tyres, there were 9,681 tyres. Of these only 1,372 tyres were of the declared ‘Wanli brand’ which also had the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) mark. The remaining 8,309 tyres were actually old and used tyres (whose imported is restricted) of brands such as Bridgestone, Good Year, Dunlop, Continental, Yokohama, etc. None of these tyres also had the mandatory BIS mark. Neither the fact that the appellant had imported the tyres in these Bills of Entry nor the fact that the concealed old tyres were also smuggled along with the declared tyres is disputed by the appellant even before us. Therefore, these are undisputed facts.

4. DRI seized the entire consignment of tyres valued at Rs. 6,44,74,896/- under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962⁷ along with an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- found in the possession of the

4. SCN 5. DRI 6. ICD 7. Act appellant suspecting it to be sale proceeds of goods smuggled earlier.

5. After completing the investigation, DRI issued the SCN dated 26.4.2018 to four noticees viz., the appellant, Shri Premji Bhanushali, Shri Israr Ahmed, owner of M/s. A H Tyres, Delhi and Shri Yashpal Singh, H Card holder of the Customs Broker M/s. Ringo Cargo Care who filed the Bills of Entry. It was proposed in the SCN to impose penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) and under section 114AA of the Act on the appellant.

6. Adjudicating on the SCN, the Joint Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 112(b) and Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 114AA of the Act which were confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) and assailed before us in this appeal. As far as the confiscation of the tyres itself is concerned, the case of the appellant is that he was not the actual importer of the tyres and that he had obtained an IEC at the behest of Shri Premji Bhanushali and imported goods on his directions and hence Shri Bhanushali was the beneficial owner and for that reason was the real importer.

7. Shri Bhanushali approached the Settlement Commission and settled the dispute insofar as the confiscation of goods and penalties proposed on him are concerned.

Submissions of the appellant

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

(i) The appellant was not the actual importer of the goods and he had only obtained an IEC at the beh