9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notices were issued to M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Polychem Ltd. and two Directors, namely, Shri Tanil R. Kilachand and Dr. S.M. Shah of M/s. Polychem Ltd., requiring them to show cause as to why the imported goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be levied against them. After the receipt of their replies and after affording personal hearing, the Dy. Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordered confiscation of the goods; but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 92,000/-in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-each on the two firms as well as on the two individuals referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Collector, M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. filed an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. M/s. Polychem Ltd. and the two Directors jointly filed an appeal before the Board and the Board treated the joint appeals as 3 appeals. Thereafter the Board clubbed all the 4 appeals and passed a common order. From the order of the Board, it appears that during the hearing of the appeals, Shri S.D. Nankani who appeared for M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental Representative raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals Shri Pal submitted that the Dy. Collector had passed two orders, namely, he had ordered confiscation of goods imported but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 92,000/-. Secondly, he imposed personal penalties on the two firms and the two individuals. Against these orders, the aggrieved persons preferred four appeals as per the Board s order and when the appeals were heard, M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. who were the importers gave up their contention regarding the order of confiscation and the fine levied in lieu of confiscation. The Board had, however, set aside the penalties imposed on of the appellants. The Board treated the appeals by M/s. Polychem Ltd. and two others as appeals against personal penalty only and not an appeal against the order of confiscation and, therefore, M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd., who had given up their right to challenge confiscation cannot file any revision against the order of the board. Therefore, their appeal is not maintainable and the same should be rejected. Shri Pal also contended that M/s. Polychem Ltd., are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforementioned goods have done or omitted to do certain acts which acts or omission have rendered these goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act 1962, have made themselves liable for action under Section 112 of Customs Act 1962. Having regard to the said specific allegation in the show cause, Shri Taleyarkhan submitted that it is not open to the Department now to contend that the appellants M/s. Polychem Ltd., are not the aggrieved party. Shri Taleyarkhan further referred to the finding of the Dy. Collector. He referred to para 15 of the Dy. Collector s order, wherein he had observed M/s. Polychem Ltd., Shri Tanil R. Kilachand and Dr. S.M. Shah have carried out the entire correspondence with the suppliers leading to this unauthorised importation. The excerpts from the correspondence quoted in the show cause notice is clear evidence in this regard and goes to prove that they had prior knowledge that what was being imported was Malt Whiskey and not concentrate whiskey. As regards M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd., though they have not played an active role in carrying out the correspondence, at the same time it is clear that the entire initiative was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board and, therefore, the Board s order has become final. It is only that order that should be looked into and if that order is looked into, it would be clear that M/s Polychem Ltd. and the two Directors had not challenged the order of confiscation. Therefore, they have no cause of action to file any revision and, therefore, their appeals should be rejected. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on both the sides. The Dy. Collector who adjudicated the confiscation and penalty, ordered confiscation of the goods; but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 92,000/-. He also imposed personal penalties on M/s Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd.; M/s Polychem Ltd., and Shri Tanil R. Kilachand and Dr. S.M. Shah of M/s Polychem Ltd. In the appeals preferred by them the Board had set aside the personal penalties imposed on all the four. Therefore, in regard to personal penalty, the grievance, if any, had been redressed and therefore no further revision could lie. In the two revision applications filed by M/s Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. and M/s Polychem Ltd., the challenge is restricted to the fine in lieu of confiscation. The challenge is not that fine should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the issues involved. We, therefore, reject Shri Taleyarkhan s contention that the submission of Shri Nankani was that in regard to order of confiscation arguments would be addressed by the advocate appearing for M/s Polychem Ltd. Since we rejected the said contention, there is no cause of action left for M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. to file the revision application which is treated as appeal. We, therefore, upheld the preliminary objection raised by Shri Pal and reject the appeal filed by M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. 8. The next question that arise for consideration is not that whether M/s Polychem Ltd. are aggrieved person and entitled to file a revision against the order of the Board. The real question is whether the order of confiscation of the goods made by the Dy. Collector and confirmed by the Board can be disturbed at the instance of M/s Polychem Ltd. The contention of Shri Pal, the learned SDR was that the impugned goods were imported by M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. The order for the supply of the goods with the foreign supplier was also placed for and on behalf of M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. Letter of credit had been opened in the name of M/s Kaman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is true that in the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Board, M/s Polychem Ltd. did challenge the order of confiscation and the fine in lieu of confiscation. Though the observation of the Board gives an impression that the appeal of M/s Polychem Ltd. and two others was against the personal penalty the said observation has to be read in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Since M/s Polychem Ltd. or the two others of M/s Polychem Ltd. had no interest in the goods, if the Board had treated their appeals as appeals against personal penalty, it cannot be seriously contended that the view taken by the Board is erroneous. A party can challenge the order which affects his right or interest. It cannot be allowed to challenge the order which in no way affect its right or interest. Shri Taleyarkhan during the course of the arguments had urged that there was an agreement between M/s Polychem Ltd. and M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. that after the clearance of the goods, the same should be delivered to M/s Polychem Ltd. Neither M/s Polychem Ltd. nor M/s Kamani Engg. Corporation Ltd. produced the copy of the agreement. During the hearing of the appeals Shri Taleyarkh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
