Zigma International v. Commissioner of Customs

Delhi High Court · 02 Sep 2013 · 2013:DHC:6660-DB
Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjeev Sachdeva
CUSAA 5/2013
2013:DHC:6660-DB
administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The court held that a sole proprietorship and its proprietor are the same person for penalty purposes, deleting the penalty on the proprietor but upholding the penalty on the proprietorship for fraudulent export practices.

Full Text
Translation output
$-4 & 5.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 5/2013
ZIGMA INTERNATIONAL
Appellant
Through Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondent
Through Mr. S. Zafar Moonis, Sr. Standing Counsel.
CUSAA 6/2013
VINOD KUMAR AGGARWAL Appellant
Through Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondent
Through Mr. S. Zafar Moonis, Sr. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER o/o 02.09.2013 Having heard counsel for the parties, we are inclined to frame the following substantial question of law in the appeal filed by Vinod
Kumar Aggarwal CUSAA No. 6/2013:- 2013:DHC:6660-DB
"Whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.5 lacs on Zigma
International and Rs.l lac on Vinod Kumar Aggarwal though Zigma International is the sole proprietorship ofVinod Kumar Aggarwal."
JUDGMENT

2. Answer to the aforesaid question is obvious; that Zigma International and Vinod Kumar Aggarwal are in fact one and same person and not two separate persons. Zigma International being the sole proprietorship of Vinod Kumar Aggarwal cannot be treated and regarded as a different person merely on the ground that Vinod Kumar Aggarwal was carrying on business in the name and style of Zigma International. Accordingly, we delete penalty of Rs.l lac imposed on Vinod Kumar Aggarwal on the ground that he was the sole proprietor of Zigma International but uphold penalty of Rs.[5] lacs imposed on Zigma International. Question oflaw is accordingly answered.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, wanted to submit that exorbitant or disproportionate penalty has been imposed on Zigma International. We do not find any merit in the said submission as it has come on record and proved beyond doubt that this was a case of fraudulent export of rags in the guise of readymade garments to claim duty drawback. The consignment value as declared by Zigma International was about Rs.26 lacs, whereas in actual market value of the said consignment was r hardly Rs.1.26 lacs. The attempt was to claim benefits under DFRC scheme.

4. Theappeal filed byZigma International accordingly is dismissed while appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Aggarwal is allowed. The appeals are disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2013 VKR / SANJIV KHANNA, J. A. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.