9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nternational were shown as the notified party. The notified party was subsequently sought to be changed to M/s Pretty Designs. Neither M/s Paramount International nor M/s Pretty Designs had valid import licence for the import of these restricted goods. Show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, who confiscated the goods absolutely for violation of the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Before the confiscation of the above mentioned two consignments, four more consignments containing the similar goods, Mulberry Raw Silk, weighing 7359.397 kgs. with CIF value of about Rs. 69 lakh had similarly landed at the Calcutta Port during April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods from Hong Kong were sent in the name of the appellants themselves i.e. in the name of M/s Unisilk Ltd., and no documents were made available to the importers in India. The bill of leading was still with the appellants. In the first case where the goods had landed in December, 1997, the adjudication was completed in October, 1998. In the second case where the similar goods in similar manner had landed in April, 1998 at Calcutta Port, the adjudication proceedings were completed in November, 1998. After the adjudication proceedings were over, M/s Pretty Designs wrote to M/s Unisilk Ltd. that they were unable to clear the goods. He pleaded that either the goods be allowed to be re-exported or permission be granted for their disposal in In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. With regard to the two consignments which landed in December, 1997, a notice has been sent to the notified importers on 16-2-1998; goods were seized on 21-4-1998; summons were issued to the importers on 27-4-1998; thereafter show cause notice was issued to the importers, M/s Paramount International as well as M/s Pretty Designs, whose name as notified party was substituted on the advice of the appellants, on 31-8-1993; personal hearing was fixed on 14-10-1998 and due intimation for the same had been sent to the importers on 22-9-1998. No valid import licence was produced for the clearance of the goods which were restricted for import under Import (Control) Law. The goods were confiscated under order dated 29-10-1998. After the goods ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to these consignments, the bills of entry for their clearance were filed on 1-6-1998 by the importers M/s Pretty Designs. Investigations had revealed that M/s Pretty Designs had obtained the import licence by fraud. Personal hearing was fixed on 30-10-1998. M/s Pretty Designs agreed that they did not intend to use the licence submitted by them. The matter was adjudicated on 18-11-1998. The goods were confiscated. However, option was given to get them redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs 17 lakh. A penalty of Rs 7 lakh was also imposed on the importers. It is thus seen that much after the goods had been confiscated for contravention of the provisions of the Act and penalty imposed on the importers, the present appellants projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Collector of Customs but also before the High Court. In that case on the date the raw silk was imported, the import was covered by a valid import licence and the import was not contrary to the law. The goods had bean abandoned by the importers before their clearance through the customs. No action had been taken towards the confiscation and imposition of penalty either under the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947. In the four consignments imported in April, 1998, in the present proceedings the bills of entry had been filed by the importers. It was not a case of abandonment of the goods. There was, however, no valid import licence on the date of import and the goods were liable to be confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and the importers liable to penalty was sustainable. The Tribunal by the majority order rejected the request for re-export. This decision of the Tribunal in no way helps the appellants. In the case of East Metals v. CC, Bombay-II, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 329 (T), the goods involved were brass scrap whose import was under OGL. At the point of import, the import was found to be authorised. The goods had been shipped to eligible importers. The importers on 4.7.1992 surrendered the bill of entry which they had filed on 31-3-1992 to the Customs. The foreign suppliers redrew the documents in favour of another party. The permission for re-shipment was made on 5-7-1993 before the goods had been proceeded against. The request was made before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
