9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the other container bearing No. CRXU-2683537, it was found to contain 209 cartons of viscose rayon filament yarn having total weight 6289.80 kilograms as against declared 207 cartons. Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. Held that- the Appellate Tribunal was not right in finding fault with the Adjudicating Authority for not granting discretionary relief to the Respondent No. 1, who had not established their ownership to the smuggled goods and who had also shared common intention to smuggle goods in India by deceitful means. The Adjudicating Authority, having found parties guilty of smuggling the goods by deceitful means, rightly imposed various fines. - 28 of 2005 with 2136 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, for the Appellant. S/Shri S.N. Kantawalla i/b Yogesh Rohira, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : Heard. 2. Perused the appeal. 3. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 2-12-2004 bearing No. A/1810-1812/WZB/2004/C-I passed in Appeal No. C/462, 369 and 388/04-Mum. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 29 (Tribunal)] by the Customs, E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g contained one paper leaflet inscribed with words "Blossoms (R)- white steam filature-China National Silk Import Export Corp.-Made in China". 7. The total quantity of the aforesaid raw silk, concealed in 50 cartons, on weighing, found to be 2910 kilograms whereas the total quantity of viscose rayon filament yarn was found to be 16881.40 kilograms packed in 551 cartons as against the declared 553 cartons having total weight 16942.60 kilograms. On opening and examination of the other container bearing No. CRXU-2683537, it was found to contain 209 cartons of viscose rayon filament yarn having total weight 6289.80 kilograms as against declared 207 cartons. 8. After following due investigation, the authority in original issued the show-cause notice dated 23-12-2003 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) passed the order-in-original dated 2-4-2004, the operative part of which reads thus : "(a) I order absolute confiscation of 50 (fifty) cartons containing 2910 Kgs. of Mulberry Raw Silk Grade 3 A, valued at Rs. 17,73,352/- (A.V.) and market value of Rs.32,01,000/- seized from container No.TRLU-4961908 under Section 111(f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the findings of facts arrived by the adjudicating Authority to be correct, for no valid reasons, the Tribunal has wrongly allowed re-export of mulberry raw silk. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.). The learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, while granting the request made by Zanrie K. through M/s. Imperial Trading LLC, observed that whether they are authorized to make such a request is left to the posterity to decide. In his submission it was rather strange that without being satisfied about the title and ownership of the said smuggled goods, the Appellate Tribunal has granted the request of re-export of the said smuggled goods. 14. Having heard rival parties, it is not in dispute that while examining the imported goods it was found that the total quantity of raw mulberry silk in 50 cartons, having weight about 2910 kilograms was found concealed and that the total quantity of viscose rayon filament yarn was found to be 16881.40 kilograms in weight packed in 551 cartons as against the declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough oversight arrived in the port of Nhava Sheva. According to them the said goods were in fact to be sent to their buyer in U.K.. It is to be noted here that all these goods were exported by the Respondent No. 1 along with other goods duly disclosed in the bill of entry. On the basis of the said bill of entry, the Respondent No. 2 paid customs duty and other charges and got the goods released including the Raw Mulberry Silk. Once the goods are exported by the Respondent No. 1, documents of title were delivered to the Respondent No. 2 on payment of consideration for the total goods weighing 23,171.20 Kgs. and delivery of goods was given to the Respondent No. 2 then the Respondent No. 1 cannot claim ownership on the said goods. Their title in those goods stands transferred in the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 filed bills of entry, paid customs duty and took delivery of goods, as such, the Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be the owners of the goods sought to be allowed for export. The Respondent No. 1 did not have any right to claim re-export of those goods. The present is the case of intentional illegal import as such provisions of Section 111(d) and (o) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
