9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for more than six months as no documents were filed by the appellants to seek clearance of the same and this aroused suspicion. On the basis of suspicion, the containers, in question, were weighed on 4-9-99 and as per Weigh Bridge weighing slips No. 31 and 33, weight of the goods of containers No. LHCU-2962497 and GSTU-4464826 was found to be 22,410 kgs. and 21,850 kgs respectively. The weight so found was at variance with the weight declared in respective Bills of Lading and IGMs as 20,932 kgs. and 20,480 kgs. respectively. 3. The contents of the container No. LHCU-2962497 were examined on 21-9-99 in the presence of two independent witnesses. 20 card-board boxes were recovered from the container. Contents of 18 of those card-board box ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent parties in India; that he and his nephew Shri Arvind were equal partners in M/s. Alik Overseas; that all the documents of their two above named concerns were in the possession of Customs department in connection with a different case; that he had ordered for brass scrap, carbide tips and cobalt. 5. Investigations in the matter also revealed that a case of unlawful imports was booked on 4-1-99 against M/s. Alok Overseas, i.e. the other concern in which Shri P.K. Jain was a partner, and certain incriminating documents were seized from the office premises of importers shared by that other concern and in that connection goods valued at Rs. 1,68,82,200/- were seized from godown of Shri Jain situated at N-54, Sainik Farm, New Delhi on 6-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rters had contravened the provisions of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 by mis-declaring the actual weight of brass scrap and not declaring the tungsten carbide tips and cobalt to evade the customs duty leviable thereon and, therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(f), 111(i) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. On the basis of ground elucidated above, show cause notice vide C.No. VIII(ICD)6/TKD/Prev/56/99/Pt./4302, dated 23-3-2000 was issued to the importers to call upon them to show cause, as to why - (a) the seized brass scrap, weighing 39,460 kgs. and valued at Rs. 16,96,780/- (CIF), should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(f) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962; (b) The seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anifest. On receiving the Bill of Lading, as the goods mentioned in those documents did not match with the purchase order, Shipping Lines through their agent vide letters dated 29-7-99 and 9-8-99 had informed the Customs authorities about the discrepancy and submitted the amended documents along with the request for receipt of IGMs. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue, in the present appeal that no request was made by Shri P.K. Jain on 29-7-99 regarding discrepancy, is not tenable. 14. In this case, the contention of the Revenue is that the request for amendment in the Bill of Lading and in the IGM is made only after detection of the discrepancy in the goods as mentioned in the original Bill of Lading. On receipt of Bill of Lading, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
