1997 (1) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - On the basis of information that various consignments imported by a particular vessel, declared to be wool waste in the Bills of Lading and the Import General Manifest, actually contained substantial portion of synthetic waste, the officers examining these consignments. Among these was the consignment of 21 bales consigned to the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant had acted in good faith. 3. The Departmental Representative contends that it was the appellant who caused the import of the goods and that by this act, the appellant became liable to penalty. He contends that, Section 112 does not prescribe the existence of mens rea or mala fide before penalty could be imposed. He points out that the intelligence with the department showed that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to settle the matter with the supplier on this basis taking into account the fact that legal proceedings result in court fees and other heavy cost. The fact that the appellant recived a very high proportionate of the sale price from the suppliers supports the claim that it did not deliberately entered into conspiracy to receive synthetic fabrics in the guide of wool waste. There is no material t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... minantly synthetic waste and therefore, not accepted the claim of wrong shipment. It did not establish that these 24 consignments were in fact misdeclared. The order of the Collector does not indicate details. Even assuming this to be the case, however, we fail to see how this fact by itself would show that the appellant had conspired to import synthetic goods and that the claim of wrong shipment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judgment of the Supreme Court in the Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) E.L.T. 159 (S.C.). Section 112 of the Customs Act does not provide for a mandatory penalty, and on the facts of this case, the discretion to impose or not to impose a penalty should be exercised in favour of the appellant. The fact that the appellant did not respond to summons does not by itself lead to the conclus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X