9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai imported one inkjet printing machine and were attempting to clear the same by misdeclaring the description and value to evade customs duty. The said consignment was intercepted and after recording the statements of various persons, show cause notice was issued to M/s. Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. and also to the current appellant to show cause as to why amount of duty be not demanded from M/s. Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. and why penalty be not imposed on the current appellant. The adjudicating authority records that the main assessee M/s. Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. settled the issue by approaching the Settlement Commission and the current appellant has not approached the Settlement Commission. After considering the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence dated 15-11-2000, wherein he has stated that he had committed no offence, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on him. Shri Glenn Almeida has, however, had admitted that he had handled a shipment on behalf of their principals in USA, M/s. Global Access i.e. it do break-bulk and Customs clear a consignment for delivery to Silvassa. He has also admitted that he had contacted Shri Santosh Nair of M/s Aryan Resources for instructions for Customs clearance and delivery details. He has also admitted that the shippers invoice, packing list, certificate of origin/manifest were handed over to M/s. Aryan Resources and copy of M/s Inter Express, CHA for Customs clearance. He has further stated that the importer M/s Aryan Resources have admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It can be noticed from the above reproduced portion of the order that the adjudicating authority has not brought on record anywhere, that the appellant was aware of the misdeclaration or undervaluation of the goods. It is also on record that none of the persons whose statements were recorded, were inculpatory, against the appellant. If that be so, the entire findings of this adjudicating authority that appellant herein is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, is totally erroneous. 7. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order to the extent is imposes penalty on the appellant herein is liable to be set aside and we do so. Appeal is allowed. (Prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
