9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. In other words, any penalty under Section 114 of the Act is not liable to be imposed on him. - C/192/2008 - A/233/2009-WZB/C-IV/(SMB), - Dated:- 1-6-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) None, for the Appellant. Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Respondent [Order]. - There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of his for adjournment. This case has stood adjourned from time to time at the request of the appellant. I am not inclined to grant any further adjournment. Hence I proceed to deal with this appeal by examining the records and hearing the DR. 2. This appeal filed by one Shri Sandeep Naik is against a penalty of Rs. 2,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him is to be found in the statement of the proprietor of M/s. Entron Apparels, who stated that blank invoices for the transaction were given to Shri Naik. Besides, his own statement, which reads as follows: 'In his statement recorded u/s 108 of Customs Act, 1962, Shri Sandeep Naik stated that he is working as export executive with M/s. Kunam Exports, Mumbai owned by Shri Iqbal Mehra; that he knew Mr. Nirmal Agarwal of M/s. Nisum Export Finance Pvt. Ltd. as he used to negotiate the export documents of Nirmal Agarwal which was exported under the L/C of his company Kunam Exports to Russia; he also knew Mr. Kumar Swamy, owner of M/s. Nelson Apparels, Tirupur and visited him 5-6 times; he knew Entron apparels is a sister concern of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant did anything or omitted to do anything which rendered the export goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. In other words, any penalty under Section 114 of the Act is not liable to be imposed on him. Even in the impugned order vide paragraphs 44 and 45 thereof, the endeavour of the Commissioner is to hold the appellant liable for penalty in a strenuous manner "in the absence of defence". In other words, there is no positive evidence brought out against the appellant in the impugned order in support of a penalty under Section 114 of the Act. 4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside to the extent it is against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. (Prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
