C

Dated :

.2012

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE:

MIS I'rashun Jain, B-51109, Mayur Apartn~exlbs,Plot No, 53, Sector-9, Rohini,
New 13elhi-110085 (hereinafter called the (11314) is holding ClIA license no. R91/2006(PAN No.MGPJ003 1L) valid upto 3 1. I 2,2015 issued under Kegulation 9 (1) of
the Custom Elouse Agents Licensing Kcgulations 2004 (hereinafier called the CHALK

2004) by the Commissioner sf Customs (l&G), New Customs I-Touse,New Delhi.

On the basis of specific intelligence, the officers of Special Investigation &
2.
Intelligence Branch (SIIB) of Import & General Commissioncrate, New Custom diouse,
New Delhi, intercepted an import consignment under Bill of Entry No. 168385 dt
16.1 1.2010 arrived vide MAWB No:- 58993215485, weighing 85 Kgs (one packet) filed
by M/s Rajinder P. Kapur, CHA in the name of M/s Rajdhani Crafts Khasra No 1955 to
1965 near 6 Km Stone Chomu Village Jaitpura, Jaipur, an 100% EOU. llle goods were
declared as "Heald Frame" (S/P of wedving machine) having vali~eof Its. 5,66,862/attracting NIL Customs duty* avsljling benefit of Notification no 521 2003 for RCD and
0212008 S No 62 for CV
s, During the course of inquiry a person, m e l y Shri
Prclshun Jain came fonv
,the gate pass no. N 20101 11 80549 of the consignment
before the officers at the exit side of cfearance gate of examination hall ~ 0 . and
~ 3
introduced himself as Proprietor of M/s. Prashun Jain, CHA Registration No. R-91/2006
and holder of "F" Card No. 162106. He informed that the subject consignmcnt was
cleared by one Shri Bipla
. Rajender P. Kapur, CHA, Registration No. Rd that he has left the cargo complex after
023/06 having mobile n
handing over the copy of
m for transportation of the subject shipment
I to the destination. Then the Customs Officers in the presence of two independent 1
witnesses and a representative of Ws CELEB1 (Custodian) and Shri Prashun Jain, shifted
the shipment to examination hall no. 3 and inquired about the contents of the shipment to
which Shri Prashun Jain replied that the shipment consisted of Micro SD memory cards
of 2 GB capacity. There after the officers started 100% examination of the goods, as a
result of which, the officers found Micro SD Cards of 2 (33, and RAM of 1 GB of
diff~rentspeeds. The details of goods found were listed in Annexurc lo the Panchnma
dated 18/ 19 November,2011. Since the goods were found mis-declared, therefore the
same were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act' 1962(hereinafterreferred as CA,
62) on reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. The details of the
proceedings were recorded in a Pancharna dated 18119 November'2011 drawn on the
spot. The total value of the seized goods was assessed at Rs 67,29,000/-. The seized

ld other documents related to thc shipment; that Sh. Biplav Kuniar had leli

r;rmfier the officers shifted the goods to Exam Wall No. 3 and exmined the goods in
to the Panchnama were found; that Bill of Entry No. 168385 dt 16.11.10 was filed in the
name of Rajdhani Craft, Chandigarh by M/s Rajinder P Kapur CHA and items declared
were spare parts of Machinery; that M/s Rajdhani Craft is a 100% EOU situated in

arrange clearance of the goods through such an importer/IEC holder whose BE is marked
for inspection in the system; that being a F card holder, hc never wanted to endanger his
license by indulging in such mis-declaration of goods and that is why, he chose Sh Biplav
Kurnar who works for M/s Rajender P Kapur as he also needed money; that Sh. Biplav
Kumar has only Entry pass which is issued by CELEEII; that Sh. Prikshit Sharma and Sh.
Manoj Srivastava arranged the finance and procurement for the shipment in China and
Sh, Raja takes the delivery in Nehru Place; that hc: was aware that Micro SO Cmds
RAM etc. were imported in the guise of other item by using the name and IEC of 100%
EOU; that he had all the information about the shipment; that he knew that misdeclaration of the description and quantity of goods was an offence; that be admits that
he has committed a blunder by inisdeclaring the df:scription and quantity of the goods and
also using the name & IEC of 100% EOU unit klls Rajdhani Craft to evade: the Customs
duty; that he did not know the exact address of Sh. Uiplav Kumar but he knew that he
I stays in Palam ( Delhi); that they (hc & Diplav Kurnar) have cleared three shipments of

.
I

I.'urtllcr stuteli~eatof Shri I'rashun Jain was again recorded on 1 9.1 1.2010 under
108 of thc CA,1962, wherci~lhe ii~tcralia,voluntary stated that he knew very well
stoms Rules & procedures regarding importation of goods i11cargo; that whenever
crllmportcr cornes for taking service of CHA, hc Syrst checks the genuineness of
tcr by checking his IEC: (Import export code) code; then he verifies whether the
documents iwe in order or not and then hc files these papers in Customs for duty
sr~~cnt;
that after assessrne~ltof duty, hc pays the duty provided by tlie importer in
bank and thcn goods are exalnincd in thc import shed in his presence; that the
corlsignments o f AWBlIiAWB No. 58993215485 I 190954 of HI11 IVo. 168385 dt.
1 0.1 1 .10 were dcclared as 'Machine sp;ircs'; that this consignment was filed by Sh.
lliplav Kumar; tllat he kncw Sh Biplav ~ u ~ nwho
a r works for -WS Rajinder I' lCap;r for
tlic last 4-5 months; that he met him at cargo office; that Sh niplav Kumar introduced
hitn in this business of importing the goods in such a way; that the goods were declared
PS machine spares in custom pa~ers/&curnents whereas the same were Micro SD Cards
of 2 GB and RAMS; that these goods were imported from Hang Kong China in the name
of MIS Kajclhmi Crafts; On being asked about the iinporter of the said goods, he stated
I that theseVgoodswere importedby Sh. Prashant ~ u i t a having
,
oflice-at 210 Gedore
llouse, Nehru Place, New Delhi, who was dealing in computer parts at Nehru Place; that
11e did not know the exact address of Sh. Prashant Gupta, but he remembered that he lives

II

and Manoj Srivaskva; that Sh. Prashant Gupta was to pay him a handsome amount aAer
clearance; that he was to get Rs. 85,0001- for this consignment; that Sh. Prashant Gupta
ch is somewhere near G a g Sweets
used to pay the amount to him near his residenc
in sector-1 1, Rohini; that his mobile no -1364889,
9 5 8 2 7 4 7 4 w a t Sh. Prashsllt I
Gupta used to contact him on these Mobile nos for clearance of such consignment; that
earlier also they cleared two to three consignments of Sh. Prashant Gupta; where such
types of Rams , Cards were imported; that he used to pay extra commission/ amount to
it cleared by declaring it &some other product; that-he very well knew that his act
had led to loss of Govt. revenue; that he is very sorry for this act and promised not to I
repeat such type of act; that delivery order was collected and fi..u-ther processed by Sh.
Biplav Kumar; that M/s Rajdhani Crafts was situated in Jaipur and not C!handi6&h as
stated in his earlier statement.

Statement of Shri Rajinder P Kapur, Proprietor of CHA-MIS Rajinder 1'. Kapu

5.
was recorded on 24.1 1.2010 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he
inter-alia stated that Sh Biplav Kumar is " H card holder of the company for the last 3
years on a salary of Rs. 50001- per month; that his H card was valid up to 2008; that he
asked him to get it renewed from Customs but he did not get it renewed; that he should
not have asked him to do company work; that it was his responsibility to give him proper
card for work; that he was not aware who filed B/E No. 168385 dt 16.11.10. He
stated that he was knowing the firm MIS Rajdhani Craft thn~ugha freight forwarder Mfs
E x h Services but he doesn't know Prashant Gupta; On being shown a letter dated:
20.10.10 on letterhead of Rajinder P Kapur addressd to Brr;! Security Manager (T)IAL),

cw Ilelhi rcg~rcli~ig
p c r t l s s i o t l / p e r ~ ~ ~ ~puss
z ~ ~ cinn exan
t
area to $11 13iplav
i~ittcdthat tllc signature in the lctter was his.

I llc ilnl~ugnedconsignment was1booked tl~roughtransporter Shri Kishan Pal larld

y his staternei~tdt. 02.12.10, was recorded under Scction 108 of the Custotns
& hkt, S ? I ~ I ~ !wherein
,.
he intc-ralla stttleci that hc knew lJrsshurlJaln as 311.Sonu Jaln lor the I
that he issued the bill in the name of Sh. Sonu Jain; that the subject cargo
Sh Sonu Jain himself on 18. I1.10 fi,r Rohini; Hc also submitted the daily
by him, wherein the erltry was made in e name of Rajdhani (Sonu Jain) and
re mentioned. F4e also submitted a
Is likc AW13 and HAWR and WE.: No
ing tile account of Sonu Jain.
b'

7,
A Statement dt. 8.12.10 of Shri Paxlkai KWN, ljriver of Transporter was
imorded under Section 108 of the Custolns Act, 1962, wherein he interalia stated that
riafler loading the goods from Air Cargo Complex, lie delivered the same to their
mapective destinations; that he was shown page no. 16 of a Register bearing name
ABROLINE PROIIUCTS and BASIC and after seeing the same he admit that the details
given there was of Sh. Sonu Jain and he signed the said page in token of having seen the
same; that he had seen page no. 17 of another register bearing name COWORATE
LONG EXERCISE BOOK and he confirmed that the entries were made by Munshi of
Transporter Sh. Pnwesh Kumar, that he delivered the goods of Sh. Sonu ~ a i hthree times
to Rohini; that Mobile No. of Sh. Sonu Jain was 93 12437916 and Sh. Sonu Jdn used to
load the goods and direct him take the goods to Rohini; that Sh Sonu Jain used to note
his mobge no; that on the way9 he used to receive calls from some person whom he did
not know; that on reachingltrahini he used to meet a person who used to unload the
goods; that in this manner he had delivered the goods of Sh Sanu Jain on three occasions;
that he had noted the address where he had delivered the goods and it was F-22, 68/69,
Sector-3, Rohini; that he used to deliver the goods of Sh. Sonu Jain without any delivery
challan / bilty /any paper.
Statement dated 02.12.2010 of Sh. Smir Agarwal, Partner of Ws Rajdhani
Crafts, Kh. No. 1955-1965, Near 6 KM Milestone, Vill., Jaitpura, Chomu Road, Jaipur
was recorded by the oficers of Central Excise, Jaipur under Section 14 of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 wherein he inter-alia stated that their business is of export of wooden
furniture; that they procure various materials duty free like machines, wood, polishing
material hardware, glues etc. against CrI'-3; that they have neither filed any B& No.
168385 dt. 16.11.10 nor received any goods against the said BE; that he did not know
who has filed this BE?; that they don't have any ofice in Delhi or nearby Delhi; h a t they
have not givcn any autharity for release of importcd goods to any one except their CHAs,
Ws EXIM Services, Ws P.M.Logistics Co. P. Ltd-, and Ws H[TZ Logistics India P.
Ltd.; that he did not know Sh. Prashun jain, Sh. Uiplav Kumar and Sh. P w h n t Gupta
and never had any dealings with these persons.
8.

On 19.11.10, Sh. Prasfzun Jain S/o Shri Subhash Jain Wo B-5/109,Mayur

9.
Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi 1 10085 was arrested under Section 104 of the

ccd bcforc: tklc C'o~lrtof Additional I'hicf' Metropolitan

(ACIMM), Psitiah llousc Courl, New Ijelhi afler his mcdical cxiinlinrttion
the Medical Oiliccr at Ur. Iia11-2Mar-rahirr. 1,ohia 1-lospitill New 1
to thd Judicial Custody for Sou~-teendays up to 3rdDec 20101 Sh
granted bail by thc Court of ACMM, New Uclhi on 1.12.10.

Whereas, Assistant Commissioner, Ccntral Excise, Division- Jaipur vide his letter

NO IV(16)24/ S&I/OFF/2011/ 556 datcd: 18.07.11informed that as per their office

L r d s , the goods in respect of below mentioned BIE's were nwcr imported and
$wived

bv MIS Raidhani Cralts. Jainur : --

-4

--- -- - 1.zLzzL"L- A-

---

-I

Sh Prashun Jain in his statement had accepted that they had imported 2-3
11.
consignments in the name of M/s Rajdhafli Crafis, Jaipur, I-le also accepted that in these
consignments the goods were same as seized in the present consigrment. The printout of
Bill of Entries mentioned above at S.No. 1 and 2 were taken out from the ED1 system
which showed the details of imports made in the name of MIS Raj
i Crafts, Jaipur.
Therefore, in view of the above findings and admimce, it appears
the goods were
imported fraudulently by rnisdeclaring &d by forging the documents in the name of M/s
Rajdhani Crafts Jaipur, which were liable for confisca;tion, thus the duty is liable to be
recovered in respect of above t b e BE'S.
12.
Whereas, from the foregoing paras and the investigations conducted in the case, it
appeared that:-

The name and IEC number of M/s Rajdhani Crafts, a 100% EOU,has been mis(i)
used by filing the above mentioned three bills of entry without their knowledge and
consent by way of fraudulently using their name and a letter head in their name where in
the Co. address has been shown Of Delhi. This is evident from statement dated
02.12.2010 of Sh. Samir Agarwal, Partner of M/s Rajdhani Crafts and the report dated
18.07.11 of the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division- Jaipur.
A bill of entry no. 168385 dated 16.11.2010 was filed in the name of M/s
(ii)
Rajdhani Crafts. The consignment was intercepted at exit gate of import air cargo and
found to contain Micro SD memory cards and RAMS totally vdued at Rs. 67,29,000/instead of goods declared as '"Heald Frame'' (SIP of weaving machine) having value of
Rs. 5,66,862/-. The declaration of the goods was not in conformity with the a c t d goods
found on examination of shipment. Therefbre, it appears that the goods were liable far
confiscation under section 1 11(i), 111(I) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(iii) It appeared that Prashun Jain, Prashant Gupta and Diplav Kumar liave connived
and are the masterminds for the above illegal fraudulent import by misusing IEC of M/s

14"i (:rufis, Jaipus with thc intent to defraud cxc quer oS the rcvenuc. Shri Prashun
was well aware oi'thc actual contents of llle sllipmcnt. Vleararacc from Customs was
arranged hy Shri Prwhun Jain & Uiplav Kui~iwand shipln~ntwas meant fbr Shri

(iv) Whereas Shri Prashun Jail1 in his stateinent recorded u/s 108 of the CA' 62 has
stated that apad h i n the consignrneilt seized by the Customs, in the past they have
clcared 2-3 more such shipments adopting the same modus-operadi. 'This fact is
corsoboratcd by thc report received from tl~eCentral l<xcise Jaipur whcrein they have
provided details of three bills oC entry nos. (1) 168385 dt. 16.11.10, (2) 991362 dl:
13.09.10 a r ~ d(3) 9578 13 dt: 13.08.10. Out of the thee bills of entry, shipment pertaining
ro one bill of entry ill S.No.1 above was seizcd by the SI11'3 on 18/19 November,2010.
Shri Prashun Jain in his statement dated 1 9.1 1.2010 hias stated that the earlier two
shipments were also s m e , As the goods pertaining t8 the previous two bills of entry nos.
991362 dated 13.09.10 & 957813 dated 13.08.10 have already been cleared by misdeclaring the description and value, therefore, the vdue and duty of these two shipments
have been calculated on pro-rata basis with reference to the weight and value of the
shipment seized by the Customs on 18/19 November, 20 10. ?'he value of these shipments
comes to Rs. 1,59,91,271/- and Its. 2,28,67,5 171-, respectively and duty comes to Rs
23,52,636/- and Rs 33,64,269/- respectively. Details of the calculations are as per
Anmxure-A to this SCN. The total Customs duty amounting to Ib.67,17,015/- on all the
three shipments is recoverable by invoking the provisions of extended period under the
provisions of section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Whereas, from the foregoing it appeared that Sh. Prashun Jain, and Sh, P r a h t
(v)
Gupta have imported the "Micro SD Cards' and RAMS by mis-declaring them as "Heald
Frame" (SIP of weaving machine) /Rotary drive shafi assembly (parts for textile
machinery)/Heald frame (part for textile m/c) in Bill of Entry No.168385 dt. 16.11.10,
991362 dt: 13.09.10 and 957813 dt: 13.08.10, respectively with the connivance of Sh.
Biplav Kumar by fraudulently using the name of a Company namely MIS Rajdhani
Crafts, Jdpur (a 100% EOU). As the bill of entry was filed in the name of a 100% EOU
thc goods in question were cleared without examination by the Customs oilicers, as
import consignments imported by 100% EOUs are not examined at the time of clearance.
In the bill of entry the description of the goods was given as "Heald Frame" (SPof
weaving machine) etc. whereas actually dlc goads were Micro SD Memory cards and
RAMS. Therefore, it appears that they mis-used the name and IEC rauriber of 100% EOU
company M/s Rajdhani Crafts and mis-declared the description of the goods and wrongly
availed the benefit of Notifications no 52/ 2003 for BCD and 02/2008, S No 62 for CVD
purposes with intent to evade payment of customs duty payable thereon. On the day of
interception, even before examination was carried out, Sh Prashun Jain told the SIIB
oEcm that the consigmcnt consisted of Micro SD cards, which dearly shows that he
was fully aware of the scheme of things and in fact he was one of the conspirators of
smuggling of Micro ST)cards.

(vi) Shri Pmhun Jain in his statement dated: 19.1 1.2010 has accepted that the said
shipment was clwed by Sh. Biplnv Kumar; that Sh. Biplav Kumar had arranged the

No. of the importer for the said shipment; that the inlportcd goods do not
o M/s Kajdhani Crafts and thcre is ail agrecnlent bctwcen him and Sh. Biplav
to the cf'f'ect that hc will arralgc the parties who will provide the fii~ancistl

,rrl~l l l i ( '

('IlA, Sli. Prashun Jain, also admitted that impugned goods belonged to one Mr. Prasha~it

C3Gpta and Sh. Biplav Kurnar has abetted in evasion of Customs duty in as much as tkey
imported the impugned rnisdeclared and undervalued goods. Therefore, it appears that he
is liable to penal action under section 112 and section I 14AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

13. A show cause notice bearing C.No. VIII/SIIB/Cus/l&G/l28/20 1Of40959

17.11.201 1 was issued to M/s Prashun Jain whereby they were called upon to Show
Cause to the Commissioner of Customs, hnport and General Commissiorrerate, New
Custom House, New Delhi within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why:(i)

(ii)

(iii)
(iv)

The goods covered under the Bill of Entry No. 168385 dated 16.1 1.2010
valued at Rs.67,29,000/-, should not be confiscated under Section 11l(i),
11l(1) & 111(m) of the Custom Act, 1962. The goods covered under the
Bill of Entry No. 991362 dt. 13.9.10 and 957813 dt. 13.8.10 collectively
valued at Rs. 3,88,58,788/- should not be held liable for confiscation under
Section 111 (i), 111(l) and 111 (m) of the Custom Act, 1962.
the declared value of the goods should not be rejected under Rule 12 of
Customs Valuation (Determination of Valuation of Imported Goods)
Rules, 2007 and why the value of these goods should not be re-assessed to
be Rs 4,56,55,078/- (Details as per Annexure-'A' enclosed) as provided
in Rule 5 ibid;
the differential Customs duty amounting to Rs. 67,17,015/- (Dotails as per
Annexure-'A' enclosed) should not be demanded and recovered from
them under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962;
Penalty under section 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962
shouid not be imposed upon them separately for the contraventions
explained above.

14.
A CHA is required to follow the provisions / obligations as contained in
Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 as amended, From the above stated

C11A MIS FQral~unJ;tin 11ns contravc~~ed

the provisions of the

11

(3)

obbin an authorization from each of the compzulics, firms or individuals

by whom he is for thc time being employed as C:ustoms House Agent
and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy /
Assistant Cominissioner of Customs

13 (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of'
non con~plialce,shall bring the matter to the notice of the Ilcputy
C'onlmissioncr of Customs or Assistant Comn~issionerof Customs;
13 (0) verify antcccdent, correctness of I~nporterExporter Code (1EC) Number,
identity of his client and functioning of his client at the deciared addrcss
by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information.

From the above stated facts, it appears that the said CIIA has contravened the
provisions of Regulation 13 (a), (d) and (0) of the CIWLR, 2004 in as much as they did
not obtain the authorization from the importer Sh Prashmt Gupta, did not verifj the facts
and genuineness of the importer before filing the bill of entry, did riot advise his clients to
comply with the provisions of the Act, did not verify the antecedents and correctness of
other Momation relating to the importer.
15.

Whereas M/s Prmhun Jain as a Customs House Agent is required to fulfil fbe
16.
obligations cast under Regulations 13(a), 13(d) and 13(o) of the Customs IJIouse Agent
Licensing Regulations, 2004 as amended and whereas they have failed to do so, thereby
vention of the said Regulations of
they have made themselves liable to action for c
CMALR 2004 a amcnded.

In view of the above, MIS Prashun Jain, holding CHA License N0.R-91/2006
17.
having address B-5/109, Mayur Apartnient, Plot No. 53, Sector - 9, Rohini, New Delhi is
hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner o f Customs, I&
Commissionerate, New Customs House, Near 1.G-I. Airport, New Delhi within 30 days
from the date of receipt of this Show Cause Notice: as to why their CEiA Licence No. R91/2006 should not be revoked and part or whole amount of their security deposit should
not be forfeited under Regulation 20 (1) of the CIIALR, 2004 in contravention of the
provisions of Regulation 13 (a) (d) and (0) of the CHALR., 2004.
18.
In terms of Regulation 22 of CHALK, 2004, Sh. A. K. Dey, Assistant/ Deputy
Commissioner o f Customs (I&G), NCH, New Delhi is being appointed as Inquiry OfEcer
in the case and the CHA may submit their written statement of defense to the Inquiry
O@cer within 30 days of the issue of this show cause notice and also specify in the said
statement whether the CiGQ desires to be heard in pcrsons before the Inquiry Officer.
19.
The noticee should tender all the evidences in original on which they intend to
rely upon along with the reply to this show cause notice. They shodd also mention in

;ISto whether they woultl like to be h

ivc.

31,
I n case no reply is reccivcd lo this show
or 1k or his authorized represcntalivc does r
c;wc shall be decided by the Adjudicating au

person or through his authorinxi

otice within the stipulated period

on the date fixed tor hearing, the
-partc on the basis of evide~ice

ttlrcudy on records.

'This Show Cause Notice is bein8 issuc

2 1.
Kcgulations, 2004 without prqjudice to any a
Naticce or any other personlparty connected
or ally other law for the time being in force.

stonls House Agents Licensing

that may be ttkcn against the
under thc Custorns Act, 1962

'Ibe department rcscrvcs the right to a

the basis of any evidence, which comes in th
this Show Cause Natice.

end this show cause notice on

'the department after issue of

22.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
IMPORT & GENERAL,
NCH, NEW DELHI.
1, Sh. Prashun kin, CEIA,
B-51109, Mayur Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi-85