9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valued at Rs. 14,57,500/-. A packing list No. 1094 of M/s. AMEECO marketing Dubai, United Arab Emirates which was pasted on one of the wooden crates containing details regarding quantity etc. sticker of AMEECO Marketing, Telephone No. 233760/237932, FAX 233759, TLX. 48297, P.O. Box No. 50013 Dubai UAE DESTINATION CCU/KT etc. One copy of debit voucher of M/s. Great India Chemicals, Kamla Market, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi dated 13-7-1991, two empty card board cartons bearing marking among other things and Motioned Control Technology NSK Nippon Seiko KK made in Japan and two card board cartons bearing marking among other things AMEECO/DUBAI case No. C/No. 154 made in Korea were also recovered. Sh. Vikram Singh who was watchman, on demand could not produce any documentary evidence to show the lawful import/acquisition/possession/storage of the ball bearings. The goods, therefore were seized in the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation. 3. Residential premises of Shri Manvir Singh in New Delhi were searched. Incriminating documents were recovered and seized. From the residential premises of Sh. Jitendra Nath in Delhi, 16 big boxes and 89 small boxes containing ball b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... micals at his plot at Nangloi; that six months back the factory was closed; that Manvir Singh requested them to allow him to keep some tea boxes at their Nangloi godown; that they had allowed him to keep tea boxes at their Nangloi godown without rent; that they had employed a watchman named Vikram Singh; that they knew Manvir Singh and he was helping them in delivery of their product when their factory was working; that Shri Ashok Goyal confirmed the facts stated by Arvind Goyal. 8. Shri Ramesh Chandra, owner of the godown hired by Shri Jitendra at Shakti Nagar in his statement recorded on 15-10-1992 stated that he was resident of Shakti Nagar; that one room on the ground floor was rented out to one Jitendra Nath; that there was no written agreement; that he was charging Rs. 400/- per month. Shri Manvir Singh was summoned but he did not respond the same. Documents seized from the residence of Manvir Singh were sent to the Collector of Customs. The report was received from the Calcutta Customs along with the statements of Sh. Badal Chand Dev of M/s. Everest Company, Shri Subhkaran Lalwani of M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Limited and the statement of Shri Suresh Lalwani of M/s. Road S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e trucks bearing No. WB/11/0624 and WB/11/4036; that he knew that the consignment of ball bearings were diverted to Delhi instead of going to Nepal; that the ball bearings did not reach Nepal and were sent to Delhi for illegal disposal. 11. Shri Suresh Kumar Lalwani in his statement stated that he was the partner in M/s. Road Star Carriers; that other partner was Sh. Bimal Kumar Singh; that the Truck Nos. WB/11/0624 and WB/11/4036 were attached to their company; that they received 32 packages of bearings from M/s. Everest Company for carrying the same to M/s. P.K. Import, Kathmandu, Nepal; that those 32 packages were loaded in the truck; that the consignment notes were in possession of Shri Manvir Singh; that Xerox of consignment notes shown to him were the same as were given to Manvir Singh. A SCN was issued to 12 persons. Here we are concerned only with the appeals of S/Shri Jitendra Nath, Subh Karan Lalwani, Subh Karan Baid, Suresh Kumar Lalwani, Ajay Bansal, M/s. Baid Organisation (P) Limited and M/s. Road Star Carriers. Therefore we also confine ourselves with their role brought out in the adjudication order and supported by other evidence. 12. On behalf of Jitendra Nath i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be exercised by the Customs authorities at the Port of clearance of the goods. In support of their contention they cite and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in 1967 (LXIX) Punjab Law Reporter page 271. They submit that the Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain Bishwanath [1997 (96) E.L.T. 224] held that It seems to us, having regard to the facts set out above, clear that it was for the Customs authorities at Paradip to initiate proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the goods had been imported on fictitious licences and not for the Customs Authorities in West Bengal to do so. They submit that the Apex Court had taken territorial-cum-functional jurisdiction in adjudication of the case. They submit that this Tribunal in the case of Engee Industrial Services P. Ltd. [1996 (87) E.L.T. 152] held that The Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order in relation to the goods imported and cleared at the port on the ground of misdeclaration of value or under assessment of duty and as such this part of the order being without jurisdiction, was set aside. They also refer to the judgment of this Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to entertain this writ petition. The first preliminary objection raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents regarding the lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain and decide the writ petition is, therefore overruled. He submits that even if it is assumed that part of cause of action was within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Delhi and partly in the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta then the goods were seized in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, therefore the jurisdiction has rightly been that of Commissioner of Delhi. Distinguishing the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1990 (49) E.L.T. 179], ld. JDR submits that the facts in the two cases were different. 17. On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case law cited and relied upon by both sides, we find that in the instant case, admittedly the goods were cleared by the Calcutta Customs in terms of transit treaty between Govt. of India and Govt. of Nepal. The goods were transported after clearance. Even if deflection of the goods was within the Indian territory it is to be taken into consideration that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be imposed on the partners, as well as on the partnership firm. We hold accordingly. In this view of the matter and having evidence on records, we hold that that the penalty has rightly been imposed on Shri Suresh Kumar Lalwani as on M/s. Road Star Carriers. 20. Insofar as Shri Jitendra Nath is concerned, we find that the contention of the appellants was that the statements of Sh. Ajay Bansal and Shri itendra Nath were not true and voluntary and were retracted. It was contended that the SCN was issued under Section 112(b) and not under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. On the question of involuntary nature of the statement, ld. Counsel submitted that there were marks of injury on the persons of the appellants which clearly indicated that the statement was recorded under duress. We have perused the statement. We have examined the statement of the persons and the case in its entirety, the role of Shri Jitendra Nath has been clearly brought out in para 45 of the impugned order. The fact however remains that the godown from where the ball bearings were seized was taken on rent by him. There is admission by him that he was disposing of smuggled ball bearings in connivance with Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
