IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/Pr.COMMISSIONER/AP/ADMN/16/2022 dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport &

A.C.C.), Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001)

Shri Sajal Das : Appellant S/o. Shri Satya Ranjan Das, Residing at: 68/38, Amarpally, Jessore Road, P.O.: Motijheel, P.S.: Dum Dum, District: North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 074 VERSUS Principal Commissioner of Customs : Respondent Airport & Air Cargo Complex Commissionerate, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, K olkata – 700 001 APPEARANCE:

Dr. S.K. Mohapatra, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Faiz Ahmed, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76629 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 23.06.2025

ORDER:

The instant appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/ Pr. COMMISSIONER/AP/ADMN/16/2022 dated 21.06.2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex Commissionerate, Custom House, Kolkata whereby penalties of Rs. 2 lakh each have been imposed upon the appellant under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i) and

114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of specific information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, intercepted one consignment imported vide Bill of Entry No. 9959888, dated 05.06.2017 filed by the importer M/s Lotus Impex (India), New Delhi which were declared to contain mobile screen guard, mobile back cover & USB Cable etc. The said Bill of Entry was assessed to duty enhancing the value for 7 items and total duty of Rs. 87,472/- was debited through scrips against the assessable value of Rs. 3,95,947/-.

2.1. On interception and subsequent Pachamama drawn by DRI on 27.06.2017, the goods were found to have been grossly mis-declared in terms of description and quantity (as detailed in paragraph 2.1 and 3.1 of the impugned Show Cause Notice). As against the assessed value of Rs. 3,95,947/-, the total ascertained value of the consignment was assessed to be Rs.1,70,94,950/-. The goods imported under the said Bill of Entry were thus seized under Section

110(1) of the Customs Act 1962.

2.2. On completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice covering the impugned consignment was issued by the DRI on 02.12.2017, wherein the goods were sought to be confiscated under Sections 111 and Section 119 of the Act and penalty was sought to be imposed under Sections 112(a), Section 112(b) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 on all the noticees therein, including the appellant.

2.3. On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority has confiscated the impugned goods vide the impugned order and imposed penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs each under the Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

2.4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalties on him, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice is erroneous on the facts and in law, since he did not perform any work in relation to the importation of the impugned consignments. He highlighted the fact that the impugned order reveals that a nexus was allegedly created among Mayur Mehta, a Customs Broker, his employee Monika Vora, Navneet Kumar (Deputy Commissioner) and the Customs Broker i.e., M/s. Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the appellant has denied to have any knowledge about their modus operandi. It is further submitted that for lack of office set up in the Air Cargo Complex by most of the CBs, the appellant’s CB Firm used to extend co- operation in sharing office apparatus, machinery and equipment purely out of courtesy; in the process, he had allowed using his computer to Nasiruddin under a bona fide belief. He further stated that the said Nasiruddin was