9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta has confirmed the differential amount of duty of Rs. 3,34,813.00 against M/s. A.N. Ash Co. (P) Ltd. and Shri Mohan Kumar More with direction to pay this amount duty jointly and severally. However, no penalty has been imposed upon either of two persons. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res and got the goods cleared. In these facts of the case, the differential duty, if any found to be short-levied by the Department, has to be directed against M/s. A.N. Ash (P) Ltd. He submits that the high-sea seller under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, cannot be made to pay the differential duty. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR reiterates the findings of the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold the goods to the other importer cannot be held to be the importers so as to pay the differential duty. We also take note of the fact that the Commissioner himself has come to a conclusion that no deliberate offence under the Customs Act, had been committed by the appellant and consequently he has not imposed any penalty on him. As such, in view of our foregoing discussions, we set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
