9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the date of issue of the order, the seized goods lying in the custody of the department as of now valued at Rs. 68,87,955/- (c.i.f.) shall be disposed of in the interest of the Govt. under Section 72(2) read with Section 142 of Customs Act, 1962 and the disposal amount shall be adjusted against the total dues to the party. In case the sale proceeds fall short of the total-amount due for the party, the party shall pay the differential amount. It has been held that on the contrary if the sale proceeds is in excess, that amount shall be refunded to the party. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has noted in the finding portion that in short the allegation is that the party had removed the bonded goods surreptitiously in violation of certain rules and regulations. He noted that the offence can be grouped into broadly 3 categories, i.e. (i) The Shipping Corporation Vessels were supplied with bonded stores over and above indent placed by the Shipping Corporation of India i.e. to say the Master of some of the Vessels of the Shipping Corporation had also given separate indent and allegedly received bonded goods on payment of cash, (ii) supply of bonded goods to vessels wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never received any bonded stores from the appellants. With another few observations, the Commissioner has concluded the finding without recording and finding on the enormous evidence placed by the appellants, on defence taken by them, nor has he scrutinised the documents referred to by them, nor called upon the investigating authorities to produce bonded register and such other registers from which the charge was made out. There is no finding as to why there has to be a duty confirmation for five years. There is no finding as to how the details of Rs. 1,49,96,813 has been arrived at. Annexure to the show cause notice had given details which have not been scrutinised and finding recorded. There is no finding on the further demand of Rs. 34,40,222/- which had arisen on a separate charge made out in the show cause notice. There is also no finding as how the goods now seized in the bonded warehouse and lying with the custody of the department is required to be auctioned. 4. There are various lacunae which are in the order in view of the fact that charge sheet and the reply have been brought out in 25 pages of the order while the finding has been confined to para 56 and 58. The observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible in view of the bonded warehouse in double lock system and the custody of the goods being completely managed by the department and registers maintained by the department. He pointed out that the affidavit filed by the department in reply to the Writ Petition before the High Court where the department had taken a different stand and the stand taken therein was totally contradictory to the stand taken in the show cause notice. He also pointed out that the appellants were not given opportunity to summon the records to show through the records, especially the shipping bills about the correctness of their stand. He pointed out that each shipping bill carried an indent placed by the Shipping Corporation of India and another indent from the master of the ship and same total clearly tallied. They have not been examined by the Commissioner despite specifically being pointed out and shown to him. They also pointed out that the valuation arrived at is incorrect. Further, there is no finding with regard to the charges made in terms of Annexure B to the show cause notice about the details of Rs. 34,40,222/-. He also pointed out that there is no possibility of the appellants removing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder without due application of mind, without scrutiny of the documents, and even without considering the evidence produced by the appellants and also without giving finding as how the demands are computed and how the appellants are liable to pay duty. There is no finding on various Annexures to the show cause notice more particularly in Annexure B. Therefore, the order is not a speaking one and is required to be set aside on this account alone. The main contention of the appellants is that the goods in warehouse are kept in double locking system and the same are released only after the shipping bills are scrutinised with the indent placed by the SC of India and master of the vessel. We have scrutinised the shipping bills produced and the details in them are corroborated with the details accompanying the indent placed by SC of India and the indent placed by the master of the Vessel and both tallies with the details in the shipping bills. As the shipping bills have been passed and the goods supplied accordingly and endorsement made on the shipping bills which tallies with the bonded register maintained. Thus prima facie it appears that there is no surreptitious removal of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
