9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t then sought time to engage an advocate to argue his case, whereupon it was pointed out to him that his counsel (who had not relinquished vakalatnama) was still on record and also that it was incumbent on the Bench to dispose of the appeals at the earliest in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment. The appellant was called upon to present his case himself or through Counsel, but he would do neither of these. He was then told that his submissions in the memoranda of appeals and any relevant fact alleged in the writ petition would be considered on merits. We heard the DR who reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. The appellant was offered an opportunity to reply, which he declined. He has, however, filed a copy of the writ petition as required by the Bench. Appeal No. C/614/1988 : 2. This appeal is against the order dated 20-11-87 of the Collector of Customs whereby two consignments, from USA, of Acrylic Plastic Scrap consigned to M/s. Mascot Metal Traders, Jamnagar as per Item No. 85 of Import General Manifest [IGM] No. 2947 and Item No. 341 of IGM No. 3069 (Bills of Lading Nos. 13347 and NYC-13613 respectively) were absolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by IGM No. 3069 had been declared as containing 18.695 MTs, both of Acrylic Plastic Scrap. [The declaration as to qualitative description of the goods was, later on, found to be correct in chemical test of samples in the Custom House Laboratory, while marginal excesses of weight were found on weighments.] The import documents showed that both the consignments had been originally consigned to M/s. Mascot Metal Traders [in short, MASCOT], that the Steamer Agents viz. M/s. Volkart Fleming Shipping & Services Ltd. [in short, VOLKART] applied for change of consignee in the IGMs from MASCOT to M/s. Nuchemo Plast [in short, NUCHEMO] and that subsequently they applied for a change from NUCHEMO to M/s. Pushpak Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [in short, PUSHPAK] in respect of the consignments. The story would get completed, one way or the other, with the facts stated by the persons named in para (2) above. 5.1 Shri Kantilal Joshi of MASCOT stated that they were only indentors/commission agents and did not have any factory or Central Excise registration or SSI registration for manufacture of any goods and hence they were not eligible for import of any item as Actual Users under OGL. He had receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of acrylic plastic scrap were available with him and that he (Shri G.H. Bhandare) asked him to contact his brother (Shri Prakash Bhandare). Shri G.H. Bhandare further stated that, upon receipt of bank documents, they (the brothers) had informed Bank of Maharashtra that they would be retiring the documents shortly. In the meanwhile, his brother had given the duplicate set of documents to the clearing agents viz. M/s. Express Cargo Movers for preparing Bills of Entry etc. Shri G.H. Bhandare further stated that his advice was sought by his brother on Shri Devang Vora's demand that 50% of the container detention charges be borne by NUCHEMO. He advised his brother to forego the deal, and afterwards came to know that the consignments had been directed to PUSHPAK. 5.4 Shri Venkatesh of VOLKART stated that they had prepared the IGM on the basis of the Freight Import Manifest received from their principals, that M/s. Express Cargo Movers had produced the foreign supplier's invoices and sought amendment of consignee's name and accordingly they prepared the applications for changing the consignee's name from MASCOT to NUCHEMO. Shri Venkatesh further stated that they later received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Devang Vora stated that he knew Shri Kantilal Joshi of MASCOT. When questioned as to whether he had discussed with Shri Joshi regarding import of any consignments of acrylic plastic scrap or had booked any such consignments in the name of MASCOT, Shri Vora gave evasive answers. To the question whether he had received blank/signed letter heads of MASCOT for the purpose of import or any other purpose, his answer was : "to the best of my knowledge, no". 6. We have examined the impugned order and the grounds of the appeal. We have also perused the writ petition for the limited purpose of ascertaining the grievance of the party against the earlier order in the appeal. In the Writ Petition, it was alleged that "The Tribunal has also completely ignored and/or overlooked, though cited, the earlier orders of the Tribunal wherein on the same sets of facts, allegations and evidences the Tribunal upheld the plea of breach of principles of natural justice and set aside the orders passed by the same Collector of Customs on the same lines." The earlier orders cited by the writ petitioner were annexed to the petition as Exhibits A and B. We have scanned the entire record and we did not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djournments to 21-7-87, 10-8-87, 24-8-87 and 21-9-87 were also given. But the party did not submit any reply to the show-cause notice of October '86. The Collector granted a last chance to the party on 10-11-87. But again the party asked for further time for filing written submissions. The Collector noted that reasonable opportunity had already been given to the party for the said purpose, and accordingly he proceeded with the case. We do not think that the Collector denied natural justice to the party. The appellant's plea of negation of natural justice is, therefore, rejected. 8. The gist of allegations against the appellant in the show cause notice was that he had deliberately caused unauthorised importation of the subject goods thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The appellant has no case that he did not receive the notice. Admittedly, he never replied to the notice. The above allegation against him will, therefore, be held to have been conceded. This context reminds us of the Tribunal's larger Bench decision in CC v. R.K. International [2003 (159) E.L.T. 961] wherein it was held that, where show cause notice was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112 of the Customs Act on the ground that he had rendered himselves liable to such penalty by effecting unauthorised importation of three consignments of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) attracting the confiscation provision of Section 111(d) of the Act. We have examined the grounds of this appeal vis-a-vis the Collector's findings. We have also noted the relevant grounds raised in the writ petition. 11. The show cause notices (SCNs) which were adjudicated upon as per the above order of the Collector had alleged that the appellant had imported three consignments of HDPE and sought clearance thereof under OGL under Bills of Entry filed in the name of M/s. Naresh Udyog who had no facility to use the goods and did not fulfil the actual user condition for the importation under OGL. It was further alleged that the appellant's intention was to sell the goods in the market after clearance at the Customs. The SCNs held the goods to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and the appellant to be liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The allegations were denied. The adjudicating authority found, on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
