9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i A.K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - The Appellants filed these Appeals against a common impugned Order whereby a penalty of Rs. 4.00 lakh each was imposed on both the Appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Appellants are Custom House Agents. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on the Appellants on the ground that both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Appellants is that they had nothing to do with diversion of the goods after clearance. It is also submitted that as per the Revenue, the Advance Licence was in the name of M/s. Rozer Overseas as merchant exporter with the name of a supporting manufacturer, as M/s. Khurshid Alam and Sons. In such cases, the importer has to furnish 100% bank guarantee, whereas in case of the manufacturer expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp;Contention of the Revenue is that during investigation, summons were issued to the importer, which were received back with the postal remarks -'left'. It is also submitted that as per the Appellants, Shri Sharma who handed over the Import Licence to the Appellants, had denied this fact in his statement before the Customs Officers. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were imported wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Licence and subsequently, the goods were diverted in the local market. There is no evidence on record to show that the Appellants were aware of the fact that the Licence was tampered and the status of the importer was changed to manufacturer/exporter. The goods were cleared and after clearance of the goods, the same were handed over to the transporter as per instructions of the importer. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
