9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge of mis-declaration in the shipping bill of galvanised pipes and tubes and attempting to export improperly under the cover of shipping Bill No. 2673/21-1-1995 and held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act read with Section 50(2) of the Customs Act and under Section 18(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Rule 14(2) of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 issues under Section 19 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act), 1992. As the goods were not physically available for confiscation, having been released provisionally for export on the strength of the bond executed by the exporters on bank guarantee of Rs. 2,23,820/-, therefore he has only proceeded to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (127) E.L.T. A48/49. 5. Ld. Consultant and Counsels took time to study these judgments and respond to the same and hence the matter was taken up today for consideration. On behalf of the Steel Tubes India Ltd., Shri T.K. Bhaskar along with John, Advocate advanced the arguments. Shri Bhaskar, ld. Advocate submitted that Steel Tubes of India Ltd. although had obtained the licence, however, they had granted the work of manufacture to Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. and they had no direct nexus to the offence and charge as the entire consignment was packed for export and declaration filed by Siddhartha Tubes. He also pointed out that it is Hari Co. who are the CHA agent who had handled the matter. He initially took the stand that in the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were sent directly from Siddhartha Tubes. Therefore, there was no role played by Steel Tubes Ltd. or any connivance in taking advantage of the provisions of DEEC scheme. He points out that even as per the show cause notice, the discrepancy was to an extent of 61.65 MT. and the duty free benefit worked out in the show cause notice was only Rs. 3,91,553/-. After consulting the party who was present in the Court, he submitted that already they have pre-deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- and in view of the party having suffered losses, leniency be shown and penalty be restricted to that amount. 6. On behalf of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., ld. Consultant Shri Chidambaram had already advanced his arguments yesterday and today he is not present. Therefore, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Society v. CCE [1996 (88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.)]. He submits that penalty imposed on the CHA is not justified and not as per the allegation made in the show cause notice and hence the same is required to be set aside. 8. Shri Arumugam, ld. DR points out that the charge of misdeclaration has been established and therefore the citations referred to as already noted above fully applies to the facts of the case. In terms of Section 114 of the Act, 5 times penalty can be imposed. He submits that in the present case the penalty has not been imposed to that extent. He further submits in all these type of cases which involves economic offence, the Court should not show any leniency and the penalty imposed should be confirmed in view of the law h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court. There is no serious dispute with regard to the mis-declaration of 224 MT. of goods and on actual weighment, the weighment turned out to be only 163 MT. Therefore, on merits the appellants do not have any case for consideration. All the three counsels have also not pressed their case on the aspect pertaining to merits. 11. The only question advanced by ld. Counsel Shri Bhaskar is that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation made thereunder, there is no case for imposition of penalty on Steel Tubes Ltd. We have considered this plea. We notice that the DEEC licence was obtained by Steel Tubes Ltd. and the exports were completed by them. They had carried out large extent of manufacturing activity and the merchan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reduce the penalty on Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and on Steel Tubes of India Ltd. to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only); (c) As regards penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Hari Co., we have gone through the show cause notice and notice that the show cause notice was confined only to the allegation as to why the CHA licence should not be suspended as seen from para 9, Even in para 7 of the show cause notice, there is no allegation to proceed to impose penalty. The allegation made in para 7 is also that by their action they have made themselves unfit to transact business in the Custom House. There are separate provisions under the CHA on which the authorities can proceed on this allegation. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
