Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (6) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of different amounts, as detailed therein on them besides ordering confiscation of the goods. 2. Stay Application No. C/57/2001-NB has been filed by appellant No. 1, Shri Ashwani Kumar in A. No. C/17/2001-NB vide which he had prayed for waiver of penalty of Rs. 5 crores imposed on him under Section 114 read with Section 113 of the Customs Act. While Stay Application No. C/58/2001-NB has been moved by the appellant No. 2, M/s. Agemo Leather Components (P) Ltd. in A. No. C/18/2001-NB and they have sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1.75 crores and of Rs. 75 lakhs imposed on them under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The third Stay Application No. C/59/2001-NB has been filed by appellant No. 3, M/s. Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd. in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as also opened and examined and it was also found to contain old, used, soiled and torn clothes and few of them bore brand labels like made in USA, Hongkong, Taiwan etc. whereas in the shipping bills the goods were shown as skirts. This container also contained watches in 10 wooden boxes. The third container was taken up for examination on 16-8-1998 and it was found to contain skirts which were made up of old, used and washed transparent cheap nylon fabric and these were not in fact skirts. Apart from these 10 wooden boxes containing watches were also found in that container. The premises of the firms appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were also searched and cartons containing similar clothes duly packed and labelled were found lying there. Those good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sioner, however, did not accept their version and through the impugned order directed the confiscation of the seized goods and imposed penalty of various amounts, as detailed above, on the appellants. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants were while arguing on the stay applications, have contended that the show cause notice issued was vague as no particular provisions of Rules or Regulations alleged to had been contravened by the appellants were mentioned therein and the penalty imposed is more than the three times value of the seized goods as assessed by the Customs authorities. The value of the goods declared by them was correct and not in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act or of any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be highly inflated. Similarly, the price 9979 pieces of watches was also found to be inflated. All these facts are evident from the bare perusal of impugned order of the Commissioner. The inflated price as is clear from the impugned order was given with a view to claim duty drawback. 9. The question as to whether the seizure of the goods was illegal and the price quoted was not inflated and that there had been no violation of the rules, Regulations or the Act by the appellants, cannot be determined at this stage. Prima facie the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot in any manner termed as illegal/unsustainable under the law. The perusal of the order shows that the appellants No. 1 on behalf of both the firms appellants Nos. 2 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... crore (Rupees one crore) towards the penalty out of the total penalty of Rs. 5 crore (Rupees five crore) and appellant No. 2, M/s. Agemo Leather Components Pvt. Ltd. to make pre-deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs (Rupees seventy five lakhs) out of the penalty amount of Rs. 1.75 crore (Rupees one crore and seventy five lakhs) and further of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs) out of the penalty amount of Rs. 75 lakhs (Rupees seventy five lakhs) and appellant No. 3, to make pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) out of the penalty amount of Rs. 1.25 crores (Rupees one crore and twenty five lakhs only) and further of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs) out of the penalty amount of Rs. 75 lakhs (Rupees seventy five lakhs). All these deposits shall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates