9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were being imported were not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year, still he undertook to execute the instructions given by the Dubai supplier and arranged for the CHA. Since, appellant's knowledge and connivance in the entire transaction of importing second-hand cars without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the import stand clearly established. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 112(a) is fully justified - Decided against assessee. - C/554 & 555/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2012 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellant Shri D.D. Joshi, Superintendent (A.R.) for the respondent The appeals and stay applications are directed against the Order-in-Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported from Dubai by one Shri Rajesh Jethani and Shri Rajesh Jethani contacted the appellant for clearance of these goods through Mumbai Port by using the TR facilities. The appellant informed Mr. Jethani that Import Policy has been changed and unless the vehicles were in the possession of the importer for atleast a year, the same could not be imported. However, Shri Rajesh Jethani informed the appellant that the cars were being exported to Mumbai and other places by using back dated bills of lading and were being cleared without any problem. Shri Jethani also informed the appellant that he was sending four such cars and one Shri Naseer was handling the clearance work at Mumbai and requested the appellant to name a CHA for undertaking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was on account of Customs adopting prices based on the information available with them. Therefore, the so called mis-declaration in the prices does not sustain in law. 3.2. As regards the contention that the importer should have had in his possession the cars for importation for atleast one year, this allegation also does not sustain inasmuch as the importers had claimed that he was in possession of such car for a period of one year and, therefore, there is no violation of these conditions. Accordingly, violation of the provisions of Section 111(m) for mis-declaration of value and violation of the provisions of Exim Policy under Section 111(d) do not arise at all and, therefore, the confiscation is not correct in law. If the cars are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, the appellant was fully aware that the cars which were being imported were not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year as required under the Policy and in spite of that, he undertook to execute the instructions given by the Dubai supplier Mr. Rajesh Jethani. He arranged for the CHA and handed over the documents to the CHA. These facts are not in dispute nor the appellant has retracted the statement given to the Customs authorities. In view of the above, the appellant s knowledge and connivance in the entire transaction of importing second-hand cars without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the import stand clearly established. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) is fully justified an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
