9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, namely Letter of Credit (L.C.) No. KTM/T/29/3/99, dated 8-7-1994 of M/s. Rashtriya Banijya Bank, Kathmandu, Nepal. On enquiry, it appears, the authorities found that the said letter of credit bearing the aforesaid number and date was issued in the name of M/s. Karki International Ltd., Janakpur, Nepal for an amount of US $ 9000.00 for import of red phosphorous, implying thereby that the said L.C. produced in this case was fake. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to various parties, including the appellant alleging that the said goods were imported into India, in the guise of Nepal cargo and the said CTD was filed with a view to deflecting into India the said goods from transit to Nepal. Allegation of connivance, abetment and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from the importer and failed in his duty as a clearing agent in so far as he has made a declaration to the effect that all entries made in the CTD were true when in fact the L.C. No. KTM/T/29/3/99, dated 8-7-1994 did not pertain to the present import. Accordingly, he is also liable to penal action under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. One of reasons given by the adjudicating authority is that the appellant was not authorised by the importer. I find from the impugned order (page 6, last para) that a letter dated 29-12-1993 from Shri A.N. Banerjee is on record which is in the form of general authorisation in favour of M/s. J.C. Banerjee Sons to arrange tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee with the submission of the ld. Counsel that there was nothing in the documents received by the appellant on behalf of his employer to create a doubt in his mind that the L.C. received by him was not genuine and not for the consignment under consideration. The appellant, therefore, filed the CTD in good faith and to the best of his knowledge and belief. There is no justification for imposition of any penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, I allow the appeal of the appellant, and set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) imposed on him in the impugned order. Pre-deposit of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) made by the appellant in terms of Tribunal s Order No. S-95/CAL/1995, dated 7-3-1996 should be refunded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
