9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy appeared and the petition was listed before the Court. We have again heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner but we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for admission of the writ petition. The writ petition itself is directed against appellate order dated 10th December, 1985 of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce (Appellate Committee Cell). Petitioner had obtained two import licences dated 21st November, 1979 and 10th November, 1980. 2. In order to verify the correctness of the value of past consumption as indicated in their applications for the grant of aforesaid licences, the premises of the petitioner were inspected by a team of officials from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports Exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upto five times the value. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are a small-scale unit in operation and that they have admitted their mistake, the Competent Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- jointly on the firm and/or its partners. The Competent Authority took the view that Clause 8(1)(f) of the Import (Control) Order is not attracted nor has any misutilization been established, therefore, no departmental action is called for in this case under clause 8(1)(f) of the Imports (Control) Order. 4. Against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs the petitioner preferred an appeal and were heard by the Appellate Committee and thereafter the impugned order dated 10th December, 1985 was passed. Appellate C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 4. Total of (2) and (3) Rs. 16,19,006/- 5. Approximate value of the unaccounted goods imported (1) - (4) .. .. Rs. 6,94,537/- Rs. 6,94,537/- or say Rs. 7,00,000/- 6. Before the Appellate Authority again it was conceded by the petitioner that the past consumption indicated in their application for import licence was based upon purchases made from local market whereas the licences were issued on the basis of past consumption of imported raw material. Considering all these facts, the Committee took the view that it did not call for interference in the amount of penalty imposed by the Appellate Committee. 7. It will thus be noticed that the appeal before the Appellate C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
