9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 were of foreign origin. The goods were seized under a mahazar under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Annexures A B to the mahazar contained lists of items of Indian origin and foreign origin respectively. The officers of telecom department confirmed that the equipments were being used in a network operation in violation of the provisions of the Telegraph Act. Shri Glen H. Bestowitch, who represented the above company during the course of search and seizure, stated that Shri Ridwan Ali Gurkhan of the USA was the owner of the company. He could not produce any proof of licit import of the goods of foreign origin. The above seizure was made in these circumstances. The officers also searched the premises of M/s. Aries Telecom (P) Ltd. in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir functionaries under Section 112 of the Act. M/s. Aries Telecom (P) Ltd. (ATPL for short), appellants in C/700/2000 and Shri C.T. Arivalagan, appellant in C/701/2000, contested the proposals raised against them in the show-cause notice. In adjudication of the dispute, the Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on M/s. ATPL under Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri C.T. Arivalagan under Section 112(b) of the Act. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that Shri C.T. Arivalagan was also a witness to the seizure of certain telecom equipments of foreign origin by officers of Customs from the premises of his company viz. M/s. ATPL. He could not produce any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereunder. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner found the company liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. However, in the operative part of the order, learned Commissioner chose to impose a penalty on the company under Section 112(a) (b) of the Act. Again a penalty under both clauses (a) (b) of Section 112 on the company is also beyond the scope of the finding recorded against them. As per the finding recorded against the company, a penalty could be imposed on them only under Section 112(a) of the Act. 4. It is already on record that M/s. ATPL had acquired possession of telecom equipment of foreign origin as admitted by their Managing Director. It is not in dispute that no documentary evidence of licit import of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
