9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on the duty assessed on them for the period between the date on which the bill of entry was returned to him after assessment was completed and the date on which he paid the duty, if it was an excess of seven days. The law also required a person who desires to warehouse any imported goods to deposit 50% of the duty before warehousing. An importer of goods which intended to warehouse therefore was required to pay in addition to this deposit, interest at 20% per annum on this amount in case the delay in making this payment was by more than seven days. The appellant filed five bills of entry seeking to warehouse the goods that it had imported in the earlier months of that year. It is not disputed by the appellant that after completion of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his order impugned in this appeal. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant are these. There is no direct evidence to show any tampering by the company or any of the employees. All of them have denied such tampering. The department has not adduced any evidence to show tampering. The circumstantial evidence cannot be compatible with the judgment of the Tribunal in Bachcha Prasad v. CC - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 269. What evidence available is insufficient evidence. The provisions of clause (j) of Section 111 will not apply because the goods have been removed after obtaining permission of the proper officer. No terms of the permission has been followed. The penalty is excessive. 5. It was not disputed by the appellant before the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was carried out by, or under the instruction of the appellant for its sole benefit. 6. Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Act renders liable to confiscation any dutiable or prohibited goods removed or appeared to be removed from customs area or a warehouse without the permission of a proper officer or contrary to the terms of such permission. At the relevant time, the terms of the permission granted for removal of imported goods to be removed from a customs area was the requirement of payment of 50% duty of the interest rightly payable thereupon. The interest in question was not paid. It is therefore clear that the goods were sought to be removed contrary to the terms of the provisions of this clause. 7. On the facts of the case that we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
