9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt i.e. the Director of M/s. Dharam Exports and was sustained while passing the said order dated 20-5-2005. It is submitted that this Tribunal has failed to consider the applicant (Director of Dharam exports) arguments that if the export goods were not prohibited or dutiable, their confiscation under Section 113(d) cannot be upheld, and as a corollary thereto, a penalty under Section 114(i) would not sustain and the statement cited in support thereof were not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in not considering specifically cited judgments. 2. After hearing and considering the matter it is found that the charges against the present appellant has been brought out in the order now impugned in para 4 and 5 thereof which read a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by SASMIRA showed a much less content of PFY than what was shown in the forged certificates. On the strength of forged documents Shri Jumani obtained DEEC licence for a value for DEEC certificate, in excess of his entitlement and got the endorsement transferable on the licences and sold them so that the transferee can import duty free goods. He also imported some consignments in his own name and cleared them duty free. Duty on goods cleared under such licences after giving allowance to the fact that the export fabrics did contain some PFY was demanded in the impugned order from M/s. Dharam Exports. 3. Paras 14, 21 and 22 brings out the reasons of the Tribunal for the penalty on the present appellants. 14. In regard to penalty impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer side; that no reduction in penalty imposed is called for; that a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the abettor, Ashok Pokharkar of M/s. Amol Shipping Agency, imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act is imposable as he, in connivance with Suresh Jumani, caused the exports of prohibited goods; that the Commissioner discussed the role played by Ashok Pokharkar in the whole fraud in great detail and that the order of the Commissioner needs to be upheld on all counts. 21. The next issue pertains to penalty imposed on the karta of M/s. Dharam Exports, Shri Suresh Jumani under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, We are in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned DR. The extent of fraud committed at the time of export of goods u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion. A perusal of paras 27.2 to 27.5 of the Commissioner s order clearly brings out the attitude, behaviour and the non-cooperative ways exhibited by the consultant. His sole objective appears to procrastinate, delay and frustrate the proceedings on some ground or the other. We are convinced that the Commissioner has done everything in his power to give enough opportunities to the appellant to put forth their defence. It has almost become a common practice with all wrongdoers to delay the proceedings and then claim denial of principles of natural justice. No such principles have been violated in this case. Paras cited above may be referred to. 4. The law on the subject is very clear. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court has stipulated that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
