9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962. However, the same are allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 6 lakhs (Rupees six lakhs only) and on payment of appropriate duty leviable thereon. 2. Following penalties are imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act : S/Shri (i) Satheesh of M/s. Max Telelinks, Chennai Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) (ii) N.B. Mohammed of M/s. Royal Telecom, Chennai Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) (iii) T.S. Kamalakannan of M/s. Lotus International Services, Chennai Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) Shri Alumkulam Satheesh, Proprietor of M/s. Max Telelinks (appellant in C/175/2004) had filed Bill of Entry No. 2038, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Bill of Entry, the total weight of these 1000 pieces of Mobile Phones with accessories and packing materials was found to be 552 kgs., which figure tallied with the weight of goods declared in the Bill of Entry. It appeared to the Customs authorities that M/s. Max Telelinks had deliberately misdeclared Mobile Phones as Computer Cabinets with intention to evade Customs duty of Rs. 4.37 lakhs. Hence the goods were seized under a mahazar dated 20-11-2003. During the investigation at ICD on 20-11-2003, another set of documents relating to another consignment imported by M/s. Max Telelinks was also noticed. The officers and the custodian of ICD identified this consignment consisting of 4 wooden pallets, which had been warehoused at ICD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort 1000 Nos. of Nokia 3315 Mobile Phones etc., and cleared the same by misdeclaring as Computer Cabinets with SMPS . He also stated that Shri N.B. Mohammed, Managing Partner of M/s. Royal Telecom, Chennai (Appellant in C/170/2004) was the actual owner of the imported goods and that he (Shri Satheesh) was only a dummy. In his second statement dated 10-12-2003, Shri Satheesh stated inter alia that he had given a letter to Chennai Customs, at the instance of Shri N.B. Mohammed, requesting for permission to re-export the goods. Statements of Shri N.B. Mohammed were also recorded on 21-11-2003 and 12-12-2003. In the first of these statements, Shri N.B. Mohammed stated that he had been importing Mobile Phones through Air Cargo Complex, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods had been misdeclared with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly the impugned order was passed. 3. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the confiscated Mobile Phones were released to M/s. Max Telelinks on payment of the redemption fine fixed by the Commissioner and that their request for permission to re-export the goods does not survive. Ld. Commissioner has confiscated the goods under Section 111(d), (i) and (m) of the Customs Act. But he has not spelt out the reasons for confiscation with reference to these provisions. What appears from the impugned order is that ld. Commissioner has heavily relied on the statements of S/Shri Alumkulam Satheesh and T.S. Kamalakannan. Though the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two invoices contained identical entries with regard to Air Way bill. Both the invoices mentioned Airway Bill No. FSS 010358, dated 14-11-2003 . Apparently, it was this entry in Invoice No. 52/110/1692 that generated doubts in the minds of the Customs officers. Had Air Way bill No. 11488 been mentioned instead of Air Way bill No. 10358 in invoice No. 52/110/1692, there would have been hardly any room for doubt. Ld. Counsel for Shri Alumkulam Satheesh submitted that the wrong mention of Air Way bill particulars in invoice No. 52/110/1692 relating to Computer Cabinets with SMPS was a mistake on the supplier s part. This has been the consistent stand of M/s. Max Telelinks. I am inclined to accept this explanation of the importer inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d consideration for the goods. Ld. Commissioner says - In the instant case, from the sequence of events, it is conclusively proved that Shri Satheesh is only a paid importer and Shri N.B. Mohammed is the actual importer of Cell phones ... But no sequence of events is seen to have been stated in the impugned order, in support of the finding. Nothing has been brought out in the order to show that Shri N.B. Mohammed did something which rendered the Cell Phones liable to confiscation. Hence the penalty on Shri N.B. Mohammed is also liable to be set aside. 5. A similar penalty was imposed on the CHA also. Shri T.S. Kamalakannan and his advocate apparently promised to submit detailed argument notes to the adjudicating authority, but neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
