CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58659 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 09/2013 dated 31.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi)

Ashok Singhla .…Appellant

33, Vasudha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34 Versus Commissioner of Customs .…Respondent ICD, Tughalkabad NEW DELHI APPEARANCE Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, authorised representative of the department CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing : 06.01. 2026 Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50263/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA :

This appeal has been filed by Sanjay Kumar Singh¹ to assail that portion of the order dated 31.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner ICD, TKD, New Delhi² that imposes a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the appellant under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962³ for his acts of omission and commission in abetting smuggling of goods of foreign origin by Lokesh Garg and Manish Jalhotra.

1. the appellant

2. the Commissioner

3. the Customs Act

2. The allegation made against the appellant is contained in paragraph 62 of the show cause notice dated 03.02.2011 and the relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

“62. Shri Ashok Singhla, the person with whom Shri Sidhartha Aghicha was employed, was summoned on 15.10.2010 and 22.11.2010 to ascertain whether Sh. Sidhartha Agicha was his employee but he did not comply with the summons and did not appear. He has sent a letter dated 30.11.2010 through his Advocate Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar wherein he stated that Shri Sidhartha Aghicha was never under the employment of his client (Shri Ashok Singhla). Shri Sidhartha Aghicha has submitted his bank statement wherein an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month was deposited as salary received by him from Shri Sidhartha Aghicha as stated by him in his statement. Information called from the Bank from where the cheques were cleared revealed that the cheques were issued from the account of M/s Jineshwar Trade Pvt. Ltd., 33, Vasudha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi where Shri Ashok Singhla was an authorized signatory. From this it appears that the information furnished by Shri Ashok Singhla was incorrect and his nexus with Sh. Sidhartha Agicha who was one of the Directors of M/s Tavistock Tavistock Trading Ltd., company formed in Hong Kong could not be ruled out.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. The Commissioner has dealt with the matter of the appellant in paragraph 161 of the impugned order and the relevant portion of the order is contained in paragraph 161 (d)(e) & (i):

“d. I have also seen the letter dated 30.11.2010 of Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Counsel for the noticee in response to another summons dated 23.11.2010 issued to noticee. It is submitted by the Counsel that Shri Ashok Singhla (the noticee) has nothing to do with M/s Jai Salers Organisation or with Shri Siddhatrh Agicha alleged to be the Director of M/s Tavistock Trading Ltd.; that Shri Siddharth Agicha was never under the employment of the noticee.

e. I have gone through the statement of Sh. Sidhartha Agicha recorded on 25.08.2010 wherein he interalia stated that till March 2010 he was working with Mr. Ashok Singla who is an importer; that his office address is House No. 33, Vasudha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi; that he is importing fabric; that he was getting Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary from Shri Ashok Singla by Cheque; that his bank account no. is 5747104222 with Citi Bank; that his job was to accompany those clients of Shri Ashok Singhla to China who did not know English language; that he and used to take these clients to markets in China worked as an interpreter; that he was accompanying the clients to China wanted to purchase sanitary goods from China.

i. I find that the noticee instead of appearing in compliance to the summons issued under the section 108 of the Act ibid has merely cast aspersions on the summoni