9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also absolutely confiscated the used Diesel Engines and other parts under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, besides absolutely confiscating HM/LM scrap weighing 40.66 MTs under Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present appeal we are concerned with the imposition of penalty on the appellants herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that based on intelligence that a consignments of 5 x 2 container shipped from M/s. Lingam Trading, Kepayang (Malaysia) to M/s. Thangam Steels Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as TSL), Chennai under Bill of Lading No. UGMU-09182051577, dated 20-12-1998 contained used Diesel Engines and would be removed unauthoris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-original, the appellants have come in appeal on the following grounds : (a) It is an admitted position that the Bill of Lading did not contain the name of the appellants. (b) There is no evidence that the appellants have placed orders for importation of the goods from the consignor. (c) No documents have been received by the Bankers of the appellants viz. Federal Bank, Chennai through whom all the documents were used to be received in respect of earlier imports made from Anar Marketing Services. (d) Even the Shipping Company was not in the know as to who was consignee, in Chennai. The Commissioner has merely held without any basis that cargo arrival notice was sent to the appellants on 23-12-98 in addition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submits that in this case the appellants have been asked to prove the negative. In this background he sought for setting aside the order of penalty on the appellants. 4. Shri G.S. Menon, appearing for the Revenue defended the order-in-original and sought for confirming the imposition of penalty. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us by both the sides. We find that in this case, the goods were shipped from M/s. Lingam Trading Kepayang, Malaysia and the consignee was indicated as Naina Mohamed Sons Pte. Ltd. Singapore which was later sought to be changed by a fax message, to bring in the name of the appellants. In the first statement itself, Shri P. Muthuswamy, Director of the appellants, had categoricall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods were changed. In Para 14.3 the adjudicating authority has held that as far as the complicity of M/s. Thangam Steel Limited is concerned. We observe that although they say that they have not placed the order, there were no documents to reiterate and they had nothing to do with the consignment . We observe that in the face of the evidence available on record, there is no scrap of paper to suggest the complicity of the appellants in the import of the goods. It appears that an attempt has been made by the adjudicating authority by calling upon the appellants to prove the negative. Further, we observe that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) has held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
