9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Ltd. The goods were declared as Polyester Fabrics . The consignment consisted of 73 cartoons with gross weight 68,900 Kgs. and totally valued at Rs. 3,23,425/-. The goods were examined on first check basis and RSS was forwarded to Textile Committee for test. On the basis of information that the consignments of Polyester Wovern Fabrics were being cleared as Embroidery Fabrics at a lower grade of duty, NSPU intercepted the consignment and examined the same on 31-10-2007. The quantity of the goods was as declared whereas the pkgs. were found containing Plain Polyester Dyed Woven Fabrics without any work of embroidery, which was meant for embroidery in pcs, strips or motifs. The type of fabrics found inside the container did not tally in any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. 4. Shri Anil Balani, ld. advocate for the appellant submits that the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 has been dropped against the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) itself and no appeal has been preferred by the department against the said order of exoneration of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that during the course of enquiry proceedings, neither the statement of directors of the appellant were recorded nor the appellant were allowed to cross examine the witnesses by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer held that oral statements of these directors during examination and cross examination during the enquiry proceedings were also proved the fact. This finding is factually incor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the confession statement is proved that one of the directors of CHA company was aware that imports pertaining to M/s Prime Textiles were handled on their behalf by Mr. Pillai and Mr. Hotkar which has reinforced by the statement given Abid Hussan, the director of the CHA. Oral statements of the directors duly examined in the course of enquiry proceedings also proved this fact are factually incorrect. Moreover, Mr. Hotkar, who was the temporary employee was found to be the main person for replacing the samples who was not holding the custom pass. In fact Mr. Hotkar was not authorised by the appellant firm. In these circumstances, appellant firm cannot be held liable for the Act committed by Mr. Hotkar who was not an employee of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
