9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 50,000/-. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on the appellant-company and its Director Shri Ajay Taneja. The order also released back to the appellant the Halogen Lamps which had been seized from them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14-9-2000 the Customs authorities seized Halogen Lamps and CD Roms of foreign origin in stock with the appellant as they failed to produce any legal evidence/documents in support of the legal possession/importation of the recovered goods of foreign origin . During the investigation, appellants explained that they were traders and had purchased these goods from other people. During adjudication, the learned Commissioner accepted the explanation in respect of Halogen Lamps as the sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Thus the onus to prove that the impugned CDRs were not smuggled had shifted to TPL which they failed to discharge. Since the party has failed to do so, these are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act, ibid. 7. Thus, the CDRs seized are liable for confiscation for reasons as discussed above, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and TPL and Sh. Ajay Kumar Taneja liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act in view of the settled position of law, which cannot be over emphasized that there was contractual obligation cast on the importer (here TPL) to import the impugned goods as per Customs law and procedure. On failure to do so, therefore, penalty is imposable as per Section 112 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prohibited under the Exim Policy. He pointed out that the appellant's explanation regarding his source of the goods had been found to be false. Thus, it is clear that goods have been imported in violation of the prohibition under the Customs Act relating to import only on filing of declaration and documents for clearance and upon payment of duty. The learned SDR, therefore, contended that the impugned order of confiscation and penalty are justified. 5. Confiscation has been ordered in this case under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. This is permissible for violation of prohibition imposed under the Customs Act or any other law. The only prohibition mentioned in the show cause notice was the violation of Exim Policy (para 13 of the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
