9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al circumstances involving same firm and persons and were argued by learned counsel Shri M.M. Patel. These six appeals are, therefore, being disposed has vide this common order. 2. M/s. Sima Exports filed shipping bill No. 102982, dated 4-11-1994 describing the goods as stainless steel cutlery weighing 39000 kgs. made of AISI-304 grade stainless steel. The two containers in which the export goods were packed bore Central Excise examination seats. Examination on 25-11-1994 showed that the total weight was 17760 kgs. and that the goods were made of steel inferior in quality than was declared. In his statement Mukesh Mehta, partner of M/s. Sima Exports confessed the deliberate misdeclaration both in quantity and quality. He also revealed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Chief Chemist as not conforming to the declared grade. The misdeclaration of weight and the grade was accepted by Mukesh Mehta in his statements and were duly corroborated by Jayantilal Mehta in his statements. Show cause notice was waived by letter, dated 28-3-1995. After hearing the concerned persons the Commissioner passed the impugned order. He ordered confiscation of the goods but permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He imposed penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- on M/s. Sima Exports and of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Mukesh Mehta and Jayantilal Mehta. 4. These six appeals thus arise out of these two orders. 5. Shri M.M. Patel, learned counsel submitted that vide their letter, dated 17-1-1995 acknowledged to be receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mehta also. 6. Similar retractions have been made by these two persons in the case of the misdeclared shipments subsequently attempted to be exported from Nhava Sheva, also. On perusal thereof I hold that my observations made in regard to the attempted retractions made before the officers in the case of shipments made at Mumbai would clearly apply to these statements also. 7. What is surprising is that when the first attempt was brought to notice on 25-11-1994 and while the investigations were under way, these very persons sought to adopt the same modus operandi within two months in an adjacent Customs House. It is correct that as pointed out by Shri Patel, the discrepancy in the weight was marginal and that at all times it was claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first consignment. Although in both cases the chief chemist certified the goods free of non AISI-304 type, in the second case of exports at Nhava Sheva it is not known whether the samples were representative samples. It is significant that this claim was made by Mukesh Mehta repeatedly in subsequent statements also. In that situation the benefit attempted to be received by the firm was much less than what was projected by the Commissioner on which basis he had arrived at the quantum of penalty. On this ground there is some merit in the plea of reduction of penalty on the firm M/s. Sima Exports in Appeal No. C/345/95-Bom. 10. Shri Patel here submits that subsequently these goods were exported and remittance was received. 11. In both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
