9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in scrap under DEEC scheme by two exporters viz. M/s. Unicon India P. Ltd. and M/s. P.S. Exports by misdeclaring the goods as BOPP adhesive tapes in Jumbo Rolls as well as misdeclaring the quantity and value of the goods. The Commissioner has imposed the above penalty on the applicant under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The applicant was one of the parties to the adjudication of a show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Department. The other parties include Shri A.B. Mitra of M/s. Unicon India P. Ltd. and Shri Raman Gupta of M/s. P.S. Exports and Shri O.P. Kashyap of M/s. Kashyap Shipping P. Ltd. The Department s case in the SCN was that M/s. Unicon India P. Ltd. filed two Shipping Bills with the Kandla Custom House on 10-11-1994 for ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of A.B. Mitra recorded on 22-2-1995 under Section 108 of the Customs Act by Customs Officers. In this context, ld. Counsel invites my attention to the application dated 28-11-1994 filed by A.B. Mitra before the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. In that application Mitra stated, inter alia, that Ravindra Kumar Gupta had no connection with, or interest in, the export goods in question or the business of M/s. Unicon India P. Ltd. In the light of such averments made by Mitra before the Court of Law, ld. Counsel submits, it was not correct on the part of the Commissioner to have squarely relied on Mitra s statement dated 22-2-1995 recorded by officers of Customs, for the purpose of imposing penalty on the applicant. Ld. Counsel furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, submits that the plea of financial hardships is not supported by any evidence. 5. I have carefully examined the rival submissions. On careful examination of the records, it appears to me that, as found by the adjudicating authority, the statement made by A.B. Mitra before the Customs Officers was not retracted by him and its veracity was not questioned by the present applicant and, therefore, the denial of opportunity for cross-examining A.B. Mitra cannot be faulted. In his statement dated 22-2-1995 given to Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Act, A.B. Gupta, inter alia, stated as follows : Since I was introduced to Kashyap, CHA at Gandhidham by R.K. Gupta, I attended the export. It was decided collectively that all have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to absolve the applicant of involvement in the alleged attempted export of goods under the DEEC scheme by the exporters. The imposition of penalty on the applicant by the adjudicating authority is not, prima facie, unsustainable in law. The applicant has not been able to make out a strong, prima facie, case for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and stay of recovery thereof. Further, as rightly pointed out by ld. DR, there is no proof of the alleged financial hardships of the applicant. The case law cited by ld. Advocate is also found to be of no avail to the applicant at this stage. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the applicant should be directed to deposit at least 25% of the penalty amount fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
