9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain seeks waiver of the condition of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of penalty of Rs. 65 lakhs imposed on him by the ld. Commissioner. In S.P. No. 56/99, Shri Ghevan Chand Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Sanghvi Overseas, prays waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of (i) the Customs duty referred to in para 128 of the impugned order; (ii) penalty of Rs. 84,44,603/-; (iii) redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs; and (iv) penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs in respect of Bills of Entry Nos. WR-1527, dated 8-5-1997 and WR-876, dated 19-3-1998. 3. The dispute relates to evasion of Customs duty in respect of 'Butyl Acrylate Monomer' (BAM) by misdeclaring the imported goods as 'Adhesive' and under-valuing the same, in order to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed and the impugned goods were held liable to confiscation. As regards the goods under seizure (pertaining to Bills of Entry No. WR-1527, dated 8-5-1997 and WR-876, dated 19-3-1998), the same were confiscated and a redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs was imposed. A penalty of Rs. 84,44,603/- was imposed on M/s. Sanghvi Overseas besides another penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs with reference to the goods under seizure. 4.2. Commenting on the complicity of the role of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain in the instant case, the ld. Commissioner has observed as under :- "132. Shri Rajendra Jain, Noticee No. 2 in this case has been found to be the main person behind the subject imports which lead to evasion of huge amount of Customs duty on a very thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; All the bank-related documents of the importer are from the very beginning being handled by one Shri Probhakaranan who is a paid employee of Shri Rajendra Jain. and (g) Though Shri Rajendra Jain has claimed himself to be an advisor of the importer, from the reply to the show cause notice submitted by him and also from the submissions made by him during hearing, his eagerness and desperate attempt to swing the balance of the case in favour of the importer is very clear. This indicate his active and financial involvement in the case. I, therefore, hold that Shri Rajendra Jain is liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) and Section 110 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemical Examiner of the Customs House had erred in opining that BAM does not possess any adhesive property. The Chemical Examiner as well as other technical persons, whose opinion was relieved upon by the ld. Commissioner, had failed to understand the basic aspects of adhesive which resulted in tendering a wrong opinion. He argues that there is no wilful misdeclaration. He denies any undervaluation of the subject goods. As regards the role of Shri Rajendra Jain, the ld. Advocate submits that Shri Rajendra Jain had merely helped his friend Shri G.C. Jain in clearance of the impugned goods. He contends the subject goods were legally imported and the ld. Commissioner had erred in drawing adverse conclusions against the petitioner-appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if partial stay is granted to the appellants. Accordingly, we order as under :- (a) Shri Ghevar Chand Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Sanghvi Overseas shall deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) out of the amount of short-levy demanded and confirmed in para 128 of the impugned order, within 12 (twelve) weeks from today subject to which payment of the rest of the duty stands waived during pendency of appeal. (b) The seized goods which were confiscated be released to Shri Ghevar Chand Jain; Proprietor of M/s. Sanghvi Overseas subject to payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
