9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. GSTU-238558-7 and GSTU-249531-0 declaring the value @ 375 USD PMT. The importer filed Bill of Entry No. 101678 dt. 06-01-2000 through their CHA. M/s. R.B. Ramnath Lambah Sons Pvt. Ltd. (CHA No. 11/692) for the clearance of Container No. GSTU-238558-7. The goods were assessed as declared. The goods were assessed at Rs. 2,68,889.19 and duty was paid on Gallnuts amounting to Rs. 44,367/-. Thereafter the goods were examined and customs out of charge for clearance was given. 3. In the meantime, on specific information the Officers of Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai intercepted and re-examined the aforesaid container under Panchnama on 11-01-2000. The said container was found to contain 90 bags of Gallnuts weighing 4050 kgs. and 267 bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Trading Co., Jaipur in his statement recorded under Section 40 of FERA 1973 on 20-1-2000 inter alia admitted that as per panchanama dt. 11-01-2000 the container no. GSTU-238558-7 contained 90 bags of Gallnuts and 267 bags of Almond Kernels, which were found instead of 357 bags of Gallnuts, declared. This container was imported from M/s. Bombay Food Stuff, Dubai, that another container had also been imported. He further stated that in winter season the demand for Almond Kernels is very much heavy. As per discussion with Shri Shaikh Salam Mohammad of M/s. Bombay Food Stuff the later suggested that the bags of Almond Kernel could be imported in the guise of Gallnuts, and both could earn huge amount of profit since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighing 3240 kgs. totally valued at Rs. 53,811/- (assessable value) the total duty calculated was Rs. 10,11,616/-. 12. Based on the investigations conducted by the Officers of the Customs a Show Cause Notice SG/Misc-27/DC/2000/SIIB (Import) S/10-9/BSH/2000/SIIB (Import) dt. 07-07-2000 was issued to (1) Shri Agarwal Trading Co., Jaipur, (2) Shri Sureshchandra Agarwal, (3) Shri Arun Kumar Gupta of M/s. R.B. Ramnath Lambah (CHA) (4) Shri Pawan Vijan, Docks Clerk of M/s. R.B. Ramnath Lambah (CHA). 13. Prosecution against Shri Sureshchand Agarwal has already been launched under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 before the Hon ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide case reference no. CC81/CW/2000. 14. M/s. Shri Agarwal Trading Co, Jaipur file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same may be adjusted from the sale proceeds realised. 20. The Learned Advocate submitted that considering the fact that they made a full and true disclosure, it is requested to grant immunity from penalty and fine. They were aware that since prosecution has already been launched by customs they would not be eligible for any immunity; however, they pray for immunity from prosecution under the FERA that may be contemplated by the Enforcement Directorate. 21. The Revenue, Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai, was represented by Shri Sharad Meshram, Appraiser, SIIB (Imports). 22. The Revenue submitted that the instant case is of misdeclaration, which has been accepted by the Applicant. The applicant has admitted the full duty liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission. 27. To a specify query raised by the Commission, whether separate proceedings have been initiated under FERA? It was pointed out by the Revenue that a Show Cause Notice has been issued by FERA dt. 29-06-2001. 28. The Commission has gone through the case records, the submissions made by the Applicant and the Revenue. The Applicant has co-operated with the Settlement Commission and has made a full and true disclosure. The Applicant has conceded at the time of hearing to the mistaken calculations of duty by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Investigation) in course of his findings has observed that the duty calculated by the Revenue does not take into consideration the Special Additional Duty (SAD) leviable on the imported goods. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted to the Applicant. However, immunity from prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is allowed to the Applicant as no prosecution under the said Act has been filed by any authority and the Applicant has specifically prayed for such immunity. 32. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission does not find it a fit case for imposition of any fine, penalty and interest and therefore grants immunity from imposition of fine, penalty and interest under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commission further directs that immunity granted to the Applicant shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts or the conditions stipul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
