9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay and since these appeals involve common facts and law points, these appeals were heard together at the request of the learned Advocate Shri S.D. Nankani and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that 21 cases declared to contain seconds and fents of fabrics and Velveteens, Mohair and art silk mixed velveteen under two B/Es-1530/49 dated 6.3.1973 per s.s. Vishva Vir for 18 cases and B/E-236/126, dated 29.5.1973 per s.s. Hazelmoor for 3 cases, were imported in the name of M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. The goods were shipped from United Kingdom. On examination of the goods between 18.7.1973 to 22.9.1973 it transpired that the goods did not conform to the declared description of fabrics in the B/Es but were found to be other varieties of Synthetic fabrics in running lengths, as mentioned in Para 3 of the Additional Collector s order. Thus the description of the goods was misdeclared in the relative B/Es. These two consignments were imported in the name of M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. against the import Licences No. PU-2636803, dated 15.6.1971 and PU-2639824, dated 20.9.1971 in their name. The Custom House conducted investigations which seemed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst briefly dealt with the facts of the case. Thereupon the Bench questioned Shri Nankani about the scope of the appeals filed by M/s. Hargovinddas Co. Shri Nankani submitted that M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. were the licence holder and hence they had felt aggrieved by the Additional Collector s order of confiscation of the goods and hence they ultimately approached Government of India. So far as the appeals of Shri M.C. Desai were concerned, the same were against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him and as against this amount Shri Desai had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Shri Nankani added that though the Board levied the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. T.V. Patel under their Order No. 2191-R, dated 18.12.1980 the Government of India in their order on Revision application, set aside the Board s order of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. T.V. Patel and exonerated them. 5. Shri Nankani submitted that Shri M.C. Desai had challenged the levy of penalty with regard to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. He submitted that as per the Additional Collector s findings M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. had sold their import licences to M/s. T.V. Patel a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner. M/s. T.V. Patel s interest in the importation was not on account of purchase of the goods but on account of purchase of licences. Shri Nankani submitted that this had been fully brought out in the memo of appeal in the case No. 413/81. He also referred to the prayers of M/s. Hargovinddas Co. in that appeal. As regard the appeals of Shri M.C. Desai, No. 411/81 and No. 454/81 Shri Nankani prayed that the penalty should be reduced compared to the gravity of the offence including the value of the goods. 6. On behalf of the Respondent Shri G.D. Pal also first explained briefly the facts of the two imports as contained in the Additional Collector s Order dated 4.3.1978. Shri Pal stated that in this case the investigations were started on the basis of information received by the Custom House regarding the unauthorised import of velveteen fabrics. Referring to the Additional Collector s order, Shri Pal contended that the import licences were in the name of M/s. Hargovinddas Co. and the two B/Es were also filed in their name and that both the consignments bore their initials as shipping marks on the bales. In the relative B/Es the goods were described as velveteen fents and se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tel. As per the statement of Shri Subhash Patel the amount of difference in the declared and ascertained cif values had been debited to the account of M/s. T.V. Patel. The goods had, therefore, been imported by M/s. T. V. Patel and not by Shri. M. C. Desai or M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. The shipping marks had to have relationship with the licencee s name but this would not alter the facts of import. Shri Nankani, therefore, prayed for relief. 8. We have examined the submissions made on both the sides. Taking up both the appeals of Shri M. C. Desai, first we find that they are against the Addl. Collector s order of levy of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Addl. Collector held that Shri Desai was concerned in the misdeclaration of the imported consignments which he ordered to be confiscated inter-alia under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Accordingly he held that Shri Desai was liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and he levied a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Nankani has mainly contended that the import licences belonging to M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. had been sold by them to M/s. T. V. Pate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty levied on Shri Desai. In this behalf we find that but for Shri Desai s role in the import of goods, the licence holder M/s. K. Hargovinddas Co. or M/s. T. V. Patel would not have been able to import the two consignments. Considering the part played by Shri Desai and also the value of the two consignments the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh levied by the Addl. Collector on Shri Desai is neither harsh nor excessive. Accordingly we confirm the Additional Collector s and the Board s order for levy of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri M. C. Desai and reject his Appeal No. CD(T) (Bom) A. No. 454/81. So far as his second Appeal No. CD(T)(Bom) A. No. 411/81 is concerned, it is purported to be against the Board s Order No. 2191-R dated 18.12.1980. Under their order, the Board refrained from taking any penal action against Shri M. C. Desai or enhancing the penalty imposed on him. Therefore there was no reason for Shri Desai to feel aggrieved with such a decision. The Appeal No. 411/81 is, therefore, not competent and we dismiss it accordingly. 9. So far as the two appeals of M/s. Hargovinddas Co. are concerned, the prayers in both these appeals are identical. Inter-alia these prayers are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
