9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 58(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,01,712/- together with interest on M/s. Parson Brothers on goods covered by Shipping Bill No. F/730, dated 1-4-99 under Section 28 read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Parson Brothers for contravention of the provisions of Sections 111(d), 111(j) and 111(o) of the Customs Act and penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 114A of the Act, imposed penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- respectively on Shri Rajendra Bansal and Shri K. Chavda and ordered confiscation of White Maruti Van owned by Shri Rajendra Bansal under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. one lakh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or supply of bonded stores on M/s. Parson Brothers by the Master of the vessel, that there was a conspiracy between several persons to divert the bonded cargo to local market, that Rejendra Bansal by signing blank shipping bill and handing it over to Shri Kishore Chavda, was also actively involved with the conspirators and would have been beneficiary to Rs. l5,000/- which was to be paid to him (as stated by Shri Kishore Chavda). Show cause notice was issued to several persons. The notice charged the noticees with contravention of provisions of Sections 62(2), 68, 69, 71, 72(1)(a) and (d) of the Customs Act, proposed to confiscate the goods covered under the Shipping Bill No. F/730, cancellation of private bonded warehouse licence and propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the private bonded warehouse licence issued to M/s. Parson Brothers as they have not contravened any provision of the Customs Act, Rules or Regulations or committed breach of any of the conditions of the licence, so as to attract the provisions of Section 58(2)(b) of the Customs Act. (2) Shri Rajendra Bansal : The plea raised is that Shri Bansal had to go with his family to Jaipur on 28-3-99 in order to fulfil certain social obligation and returned to Gandhidham on 7-4-99 and, that before leaving for Jaipur he had signed one set of shipping bills to enable sale and shipment of consumable stores to foreign going vessels so as to maintain regular supply of goods to their customers, and that he was unaware of the contravention by Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity in supplies of Bonded goods to vessel M.V. RAHMI PAK under cover of a Shipping Bill filed by M/s. Parson Brothers had been made and that one Shri Naresh had landed the supplies, which Shri Kishore of M/s. Parson Brothers had made on vessel M.V. RAHMI PAK and Shri Naresh had brought the goods supplied back to Gandhidham. Moreover, I find that it has been confessed by Shri Popatbhai that he had signed the Blank Shipping Bills, thus had given a full liberty and opportunity for conspirators like Shri Kishore to take advantage of and to break the Customs Law. Shri Popatbhai is a responsible Authorised Signatory of M/s. Parson Brothers at their Gandhidham Office and he has neglected his duties and failed to do any precaution which would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use when investigating officers visited the Warehouse. Shri Bansal had accepted his responsibility for all the wrong doing and also evasion of duty as a Authorised Representative of M/s. Parson Brothers. 65. M/s. Parson Brothers in their written submissions dated 19-11-99 have taken a view that, Warehouse Register, books of account of Company, the Sales Tax Register, Permit Signed by the Master, encashment certificate, cheque issued by M/s. Nanavati etc. were the records found in their office and all records and registers were complete in all respects and entries were properly made and removal accounted for and these documents were not incriminating according to them. However, in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for having transported and diverted liquor and cigarettes is also upheld. However, the fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), in view of the submission that its value at the time of seizure was only Rs. 2 lakhs and the seizure of the vehicle took place over 3 years ago. 5. Shri Kishore Chavda : This appellant has admitted his role in the conspiracy of diversion of bonded stores to local market but has only pleaded for leniency in the quantum of penalty. We see no reason to reduce the amount of penalty imposed i.e. Rs. 55,000/- as he is to quote the Commissioner, fountain head of conspiracy in the subject case. We, therefore, uphold the penalty up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
