9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and numbers for the same importers. Hence both the lots were inspected by the SIIB and noticed that one lot was wrapped in white plastic cover and the other lot was in black plastic cover. Since both the lots had the same import marks and it was difficult to allocate lots item wise, Customs House agent was directed to arrange for the simultaneous examination of both the lots. Though both the lots had same import marks as per IGM the lot in white plastic wrapper was found to have an additional marks L/C besides the marks indicated in the IGM MCO Bombay 1-41". The examination reveals that the 41 bales wrapped in black plastic were found to be blended wool/synthetic soft waste. Out of the 41 bales in white plastic wrapper bales Nos. 1 to 23, on examination were found to contain blended wool/synthetic waste and on removing the same a small bale was found concealed in each of the 23 bales. The concealed 23 bales were in ICI mill packing and found to bear the description Polyamide Staple Fibre". On examination also the concealed bales revealed that they were found to contain Polyamide Staple Fibre. The other bale Nos. 24 to 30 and 34 to 41 were found lo contain blended synthetics/w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts with identical marks had been imported one with the correct goods and the other with costly and higher duty items concealed inside the bales. Since the letter of credit was opened for the import of only one lot, the additional marking LC on the packages is definitely to indicate that the lot with the additional marking LC is pertaining to the lot covered by the letter of credit. The letter of credit is in respect of documents covered by B/E. No. 2034/161. Second set of documents pertaining to other consignment also do not show additional marks LC . It was also held by the Collector that the import of 2 identical consignments with the same marks and the same quantity was intended to get the correct goods examined after retiring documents for one consignment and take delivery of other consignment wherein Polyamide Staple fibre was concealed from all sides by blended wool/synthetic waste and cleared the correct goods. The consignment covered by B/E No. 2034/161 covering fibre only shows that out of the two consignments this consignment is the one imported against L.C. On this basis the order of absolute confiscation of both the consignments viz. consignment in respect of No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the invoice and indent dated 4-5-1987. He also invited our attention to the letter addressed to M/s. Khurana Co. dated 28-5-1987 cancelling the indent No. 87196 dated 4-5-1987 and the undated telex from the suppliers to the effect that due to oversight their shipping department have sent 41 bales marked MCO/Bombay/LC 1-41 packed in white wrappers were shipped to Bombay and they have already contacted the shipping company to arrange immediate reshipment of the goods. He also invited our attention to the undated letter from the suppliers confirming that indent No. 87196 dated 4-5-1987 was cancelled by mutual agreement in June and due to over sight in their shipping department these 41 bales have been shipped. Our attention was also drawn to their letters dated 4-8-1987 and 2-11-1987 addressed to the bankers for sending the documents back to the suppliers. 6. The departmental representative Shri Prabhu argued that the consignment of 41 bales with additional marking L/C could only relate to the one indent with L.C. since the other consignment indented was on D.A.P. basis. There could not be an additional marking L/C on account of over-sight as contended by the suppliers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by opening the L/C. It is found that when on examination, the 41 bales marked with additional marking L/C, (they) were found to contain goods not declared. The importers have chosen to dis-own that lot and claimed only those which are free from mis-declaration. Such a stand is not tenable especially when both the lots had been imported by the same importers on the basis of indents placed on the same date for identical goods for the same number of packages. Moreover, the documents produced by the importers viz. their letter to the suppliers cancelling one of the indents, their letter to the bankers for returning the documents in respect of one lot and the letter from the suppliers staling that the other lot was sent by mistake with marking L/C in order to establish the contention that the other lot was not imported by them do not carry conviction for the following reasons :- It has been brought on record that the indenters have not received any correspondence from the importers regarding the cancellation of the indent for the other lot. The bankers has also clearly indicated that they have received the letter from the importers asking them to return the documents only on 2-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for confiscation under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act. In view of our findings that the lot with the additional markings L/C is the one sought to be cleared under the B/E, the other lot for which a B/E has not been filed and no licence produced is liable for confiscation under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act. We, therefore, uphold the Collector s order of confiscation of both the lots. 10. Now coming to the question of penal liability it is observed that the importers apparently have created documents after the examination and investigation commenced. The letters appear to have been written by them with back dates have either not reached the addressee or have been delivered subsequently. The letter and the telex from the suppliers are undated and appear to have been solicited. Moreover, the importers had pre-plan to import the polyamide fibre concealed in some of the bales by placing 2 indents simultaneously on the same date and also importing them with same marks and numbers. It is also strange to note that the suppliers do not offer any explanation as to why the consignment contained polyamide fibre concealed in 23 bales. All these factors lead us to the conclusion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
