9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Kg. Thus the duty that would have been evaded is more than Rs. 9,52,785.50 as shown in the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports Exports (Central) Act, 1947 and the importers are liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. I, therefore, order absolute confiscation of the offending goods under Section 111(d) 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports Exports (Central) Act, 1947. As no B/E has been filed and no person has come forward to clear the goods, I also order that goods be disposed of after keeping representative samples. I also impose a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the actual content of the goods. The invoice No. INV 7337/8A, dated 5-8-1985 of M/s. Mainz Co. Ltd. indicated that 48 bales of 22288 KGs wool waste, white coloured soft waste (Wool content Minimum 70%) at the rate of Pounds 0.85 per KG was supplied. The Certificate of origin and the insurance certificate also indicated the shipment of 48 bales wool waste. Investigations also revealed that the documents came through United Commercial Bank; that the United Commercial Bank had sent an intimation dated 7-9-1985 to M/s. Kiran Combers Spinners, the present Appellants; that the documents were retired in September, 1985; that the value of the consignment was Rs. 3,15,563.23. It was also found that there was no Letter of Credit in this case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that some other goods were supplied by them by mistake; that because of this intimation, they did not file any document for clearance of the goods. It was also argued on their behalf that they had not committed any offence. They pointed out that the Supplier had informed them that synthetic waste was shipped in some bales. They, therefore, requested for drawal of samples afresh and also for cross-examination of the persons who witnessed the examination of the goods. 7. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that normally 10% of the packages are examined. But in the instant case, samples were drawn only from two packages and sent for chemical tests. It was submitted by the ld. Counsel that the goods were not Acrylic Fibre, but were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the above submissions and the case law cited and relied upon, the Appeal may be allowed. 8. Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel, Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR, submitted that the import of the goods required a licence as has been brought out clearly in the impugned order and since the Appellant did not have a licence, therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation. He submitted that the plea of the Appellant that they had not filed the Bill of Entry and, therefore, there was no mis-declaration. The ld. DR submitted that the facts of the case clearly show that the appellants had imported the goods and wanted to clear the same as Wool waste and that the 5 bales of wool waste were kept in the front only to hide the 43 bales of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter to the Department. In the instant case, we find that the Appellant could not place on record any negotiations or order placed for the goods. Further, the Appellant did not inform the Customs Authorities about the mix-up in the consignment, though according to them, they had been telephonically intimated by the foreign Supplier about the mix-up some time in September, 1985. Hence the facts in these two cases are quite different. 11. Insofar as the case law in the case of M/s. Mehra Spinning Mills, relied upon by the Appellant, is concerned, the facts were that the Appellants did not claim the goods nor made any payment. In the instant case, though the Appellants had stated that they had not claimed the goods, but the fact remains tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign supplier that there was a mix-up in the goods exported by them. We also note that the Appellants have not intimated the Customs about this fact for a long time, but that the Appellants have got the IGM amended in October 1985 itself. Thus, there was an intention on the part of the Appellant to defraud the Government. 14. The other point that was argued before us was that when the show cause notice alleged that the goods were Acrylic Fibre and the goods on second examination were found to be synthetic waste, they were not put to notice on these. We have perused the various submissions made before the lower authorities and we note that both sides agreed and admitted that it was not acrylic fibre, but synthetic waste (Acrylic waste). Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
