9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t thereto CCP dated 28-12-1990 was issued, permitting the import of one Canon Laser Colour Copier with accessories. Thereupon the goods were imported as is evidenced by Bill of Entry dated 17-5-91. Copier with accessories was valued at Rs. 2,71,580/-. Duty on that was shown as Rs. 4,07,370/- plus additional duty of Rs. 1,42,579.50. Thus the total duty came to Rs. 5,49,950/- as per the Bill of Entry. On the arrival of that consignment Officers of the Customs Deptt. examined the same. On such examination, the Officers made endorsement on the back of the Bill of Entry which reads "Canon Laser Copier 01 Unit with accessories as per invoice and packing list attached and examined......". Thereafter the goods were cleared and were removed from Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport Trade Control Order, 1955. (5) Shri Baljit Singh Kohli should be penalised u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for his various acts of omission and commission. (6) M/s. Kohli Printographics should not be penalised u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for their acts of omission and commission." The appellant raised objection to the action proposed against them. Ld. Commissioner by his Order-in-Original No. 6/KK/97, dated 28-1-97 ordered confiscation of Canon Laser Colour Copier and its accessories under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Those goods were offered to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,47,252/- was directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Customs Barrier. This notice could have been issued legally only if the extended period of limitation is available. For the Deptt. to avail the extended period of limitation, they are duty bound to show that something positive was done by the appellant other than mere inaction or failure on his part. They must allege and prove some conscious or overt action on the part of the appellant wherein he withheld valid information misleading or misdirecting the officers of the Excise department. Only on such proof of circumstances can the department initiate action beyond the period of 6 months from the date of clearance of the goods [vide decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments v. Collector o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
