9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued at Rs. 1,09,23,681/- vide various Bills of Entry and claimed the benefit of the erstwhile Notification No. 340/86, dated 13-6-1986. Various other materials valued at Rs. 35,20,837/- were also imported by them availing the benefit of the above mentioned notification. They executed a bond for Rs. 5 crores undertaking to comply with all the conditions in the notification. In terms of the notification, capital goods imported should have been installed within a period of one year from the date of importation for the production of goods for export out of India or in connection with the production or packing of such goods. The other goods should have been used for similar purpose within a period of one year from the date of importation or su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertaken by them in terms of the bond executed by them. Therefore the Collector found that in terms of the erstwhile Notification No. 340/86 goods cleared free of duty have been rendered liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, the stock of the finished goods lying in the bonded premises, manufactured out of the imported non-duty paid raw materials were also found liable to confiscation in terms of the bond executed by them. Accordingly, confiscation of the capital goods valued at Rs. 1,09,23,681/- and raw materials valued at Rs. 35,20,837/- and the finished goods lying in the bonded premises under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 was ordered. Since the Directors of the company had not shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 was forwarded by the Official Liquidator of the High Court of Kerala on 26-6-2001 vide letter No TSII/C.P.45/98/CEGAT/4901/2001, dated 26-6-2001 and taken on record. 5. The matter was heard, when Advocate Shri A.K.J. Nambiar appeared for the appellants. We, after hearing learned Advocate and learned Departmental Representative, have considered the matter and submissions made by both sides and find - (a) The ground taken by the appellants is that the facts of the case as stated in the impugned order are correct and not disputed. The dispute is on exports of which could not be made due to circumstances totally beyond the control of the appellants and their financial difficulties which were not considered by the Commissioner. While we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for penalty. Therefore, in the present case, we find that the Managing Director, being in-charge of the company should be held liable for penalty under Section 112 for having conducted the affairs of the company in a manner that the goods became liable for confiscation under Section 111(o). As export commitments were not made and kept. We further find that the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the Managing Director when the goods are absolutely confiscated is not excessive and no reasons are forthcoming for a reduction of the same. 6. In view of our findings, we reject the Appeal No. C/ 559/96 filed by Shri O.T. Inasu, on behalf of the company. The Appeal No. C/377/99 filed by the Revenue against the same impugned order is for perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
