By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APR 02, 2014: M/s UPS Jetair Express P. Ltd., Mumbai filed one bill of entry in the name of the appellant M/s Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. as importer.

The Customs authorities at CSI Airport, Mumbai held the goods liable for confiscation and accordingly the same were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. Penalty was also imposed on the appellant.

When the said order of adjudication was received by the appellant, the appellant was shocked as they had not imported any consignment through M/s UPS Jetair Express.

Therefore, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that as they are not the importer and somebody had played a fraud by using their name in importing the impugned goods the penalty be waived.

The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the following order:

"In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant matter as detailed earlier, the penalty of Rs.5000/- imposed on the appellant importers is set aside, without prejudice to taking further action against them, if necessary, and if found that they have also connived/colluded in the fraud committed in this matter, on conclusion of the investigations directed above."

Now, this "observation" was much more damning than what the alleged fraudster had done, opined the appellant.

They are, therefore, aggrieved with this part of the order - "without prejudice to taking further action against them, if necessary, and if found that they have also connived/colluded in the fraud committed in this matter, on conclusion of the investigations directed above" and have filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction by making such an observation.

The Bench comprising of the lone Member (Judicial) observed -

"5. As the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) himself has observed that appellant is not the importer in the matter and somebody has used their name for import of the goods and after arriving at the decision, he exonerated the appellant from imposition of penalty. Therefore, the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) "without prejudice to taking further action against them, if necessary, and if found that they have also connived/colluded in the fraud committed in this matter, on conclusion of the investigations directed above" are not warranted. Accordingly, that part of the order is set aside."

The appeal was disposed of in the above terms.

(See 2014-TIOL-496-CESTAT-MUM)