9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 and were chargeable to duty @ 60% ad valorem basic duty and 40% ad valorem auxiliary duty, total duty liability being Rs. 12,39,978/-. It was also alleged that the goods imported were not covered by a valid import licence and were, therefore, prohibited goods liable for confiscation and importers liable for penal action. There is no dispute that the identity of the goods is not established and, therefore, the only point for consideration is whether the appellants claim that the goods were despatched by the foreign consignee from Hongkong by mistake is acceptable or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had exported precious stones to M/s. Super Gems in February and March 1987 on consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs upon Mrs. Mithlesh Rawat, Proprietrix of the appellants. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri G.K. Rana, learned Counsel and Shri Bhushan, learned SDR. 4. The admitted position is that the goods involved are not the goods which were exported to Hongkong by the appellants. The appellants contention that the foreign consignee had sent these goods by mistake and, therefore, they should be allowed to be re-exported cannot be rejected outright. We see force in the arguments of the appellants that there was a mistake on the part of the foreign consignee and this fact had been brought to the notice of the Department as early as on 19-9-1987 when the appellants wrote to the Assistant Collector, as follows : On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in the letter of M/s. Super Gems dated 22-9-1987 was received by them. From the letter of 22-9-1987 it can be gathered that such a telegram was actually sent to the Customs Department. The adjudicating authority has concluded that the letters referred to above came into existence much later than the dates found on them after the detection of the discrepancy by the customs authorities and that they were apparently written at the instance of the appellants after the serious consequences of the false declaration was realised. He has also found that the original letters did not bear marks indicating that they had been folded and sent by post and are, therefore, clearly only an after-thought/concocted for the purpose of the case. However, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
