9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills and Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Shakti International. There is no appeal of the M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills. However, M/s. Shakti International has filed a separate appeal which has numbered as C/4006/87-NB, the original number in WRB, Bombay as C/1107/87-Bom. 3. The other appeal of M/s. Amba Woollen Mills and M/s. Shakti International arises from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay in File S/10-126/86 L SIIB/DRI/No. 34/XI/7/86-Inv, dated 8-6-1987/20-10-1987. By this order also, the Collector has ordered for confiscation of goods namely, Polyester Fibre as well as Acrylic Fibre under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. He has not granted an option to the importers to redeem the same on payment of fine. By this order, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on M/s. Amba Woollen Mills and M/s. Shakti International and another Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. Kamal Silk Mills. There is no appeal filed by M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills and M/s. Kamal Silk Mills. Hence, these four appeals are restricted to the appeals filed by M/s. Amba Woollen Mills and M/s. Shakti International against the imposition of persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-1986, goods covered by the Bill of Entry No. 2538/94 were examined in the presence of clearing agents. During examination, a few bales kept in the front portion of the containers were found to contain declared goods i.e. Acrylic Fibre, whereas a majority of the bales stocked rear side of the containers were found to contain material other than declared. After further examination samples were drawn and sent for test to Customs House Laboratory, Bombay. It was ascertained that out of the 235 bales, 157 bales contained Polyester Fibre totally weighing 34,245 kgs. and the remaining 74 bales contained Acrylic Fibre totally weighing 11,135 kgs. The value was found to be Rs. 5,77,007/- as against declared assessable value Rs. 2,94,161/-. It was found that the party had misdeclared the goods with regard to their contents, weight and value. These were seized on 18-6-1986 under the reasonable belief that they are liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice. 8. In his statement dated 22-8-1986 and 4-9-1986 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, Mr. Ravinder Garg, Partner of M/s. Amba Woollen Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not know whether M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills had filed any Bill of Entry or cleared the goods. 10. The learned Collector after going through the reply to the show cause notice has passed the impugned order against M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills, M/s. Amba Woollen Mills, and M/s. Shakti International. He has come to the conclusion that there has been misdeclaration of goods and the goods are liable for confiscation. He has also observed that originally the goods were made for M/s. Amba Woollen Mills through their indenting agent M/s. Shakti International. He has observed that at present M/s. Amba Woollen Mills admitted import of Polyester Fibre in the guise of Acrylic Fibre by getting the containers packed in such a way that polyester fibre is not detected at the time of examination by Customs. This was done by getting second or third rows stocked with bales containing Acrylic Fibre in front of the containers. Further, not only different item was attempted to be cleared, but excess quantity was also attempted to be cleared by showing half weight on all the shipping documents. He has held that there is otherwise no explanation for the nature of packing inside the container whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Cambridge Woollen Mills, who filed the Bill of Entry and who is the owner of the goods. Therefore, the imposition of penalty without any involvement of the appellants is not justified. In this regard, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Mehra Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 576 and that of Uma Textiles v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 433 (Tribunal) = 1990 (15) ETR 369. 13. The learned DR reiterated the departmental submissions. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records. The learned Collector has recorded the allegations and the reply to the show cause notice in 19 pages. However, he has not dealt with the points raised by the parties individually and his finding is totally without any analysis of the evidence and submissions and is not a speaking order at all. It is very clear from the allegation and the reply made in the show cause notice that M/s. Amba Woollen Mills had refused the goods and informed this to the suppliers and had made it clear that they had not going to clear the goods as they are not interested with the same. They had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants as he has refused to clear the goods and that he had not filed the Bill of Entry or any other documents. 16. In the case of Uma Textiles (supra), a similar view has been taken, wherein it has been held that where the department had not produced any documents to prove the manipulation and the transaction to import polyester fibre and viscose staple fibre by misdeclaring such goods, it could not impose the penalty on the importers as there was no contravention of Section 3(1) of Imports and Exports (Control) Order, 1947 etc. 17. Taking into consideration, these two judgments and also the fact that the appellants had not filed the Bill of Entry nor they had claimed the goods, nor they had misdeclared the goods or its value in collusion with the supplier as well as the banks and that the suppliers had negotiated with M/s. Cambridge Woollen Mills, therefore, the department has not made out any case for involvement of these appellants. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the citations relied, the impugned order against these appellants imposing penalty is set aside by allowing the appeals. - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
