9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EOU to clear restricted goods under the benefit of exemption available to an EOU from duty and licence to import such goods. For the other two Bills of Entry, no such documents were produced. Only the two Bills of Entry were assessed, inasmuch as from the documents enclosed, it is seen that they have endorsements that transit bond for transferring, after waiver of physical warehousing. The said goods were obtained from the Bond Department of Custom House and duty has been calculated and S40 file number entered. 3. Due to certain disputes, which arose within the CHA, importer indentors, the goods could not be cleared from the Bombay Docks non-clearance was also on account of non-receipt of original documents like invoices, Bill of Lading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962. Since these two activities alone, by themselves will not render such goods liable to confiscation. The liability to confiscation in this case emanates from the production of an ineligible procurement certificate of an EOU. There is no finding as to how this appellant had any role to play as regards procurement of this certificate. The penalty imposed on this appellant has therefore to be set aside. 6. As regards the penalty imposed on appellant Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, the findings arrived at by the Commissioner do not bring out as to how he was concerned with the procurement of certificates which have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clearance was effected. 8. In view of our findings, we would consider the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 to be only upheld. The importer company is held liable to a penalty for two Bills of Entry. As regards imposition of penalty on the importor, we find that a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs has been imposed which is excessive. Taking all aspects into consideration we reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only) and thus allow the appeal partly. There is no appeal against the redemption fines being pressed, we do not order any alteration in the same. 9. These appeals are disposed by allowing the appeal of Shri Rajeev Kapoor and Shri Sanjeev Kapoor by setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
