9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal was filed by the department against the Commissioner's order wherein no penalty was imposed on the respondent. The appellant is represented by the learned SDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We are taking up this old appeal for final disposal. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai were assigned the additional job of getting the goods re-exported to the sender through M/s. Schenkers International, Mumbai. It cannot be said that they were concerned actually with the import of the goods and therefore, M/s. Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai are not liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. So far it relates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old this shipment until further instructions'. It is further submitted that the respondent continued to pay the Port Trust charges in respect of the shipment upto August 1997 to prevent the goods from being auctioned. It is submitted that the respondent was aware of the fact that the goods were shipped unauthorisedly to India. In the circumstances, according to the appellant, a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow this column. It is, therefore, not ascertainable as to whether such instruction/advice was addressed to the respondent or to Asia World Exports. Neither the memorandum of appeal nor the SDR's submissions throw any light on this aspect. The appellant has also claimed that the respondent paid Port Trust charges upto August 1997 to prevent the goods from being auctioned, but this claim is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
