9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Commissioner of Customs, in Original Order No. 31/2000/COMMR/CUS. ADJN., dated 13-9-2000 imposing penalty of 5,00,000/- upon the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, (hereinafter called as the, 'Acting') 2. The detailed facts necessary for deciding the question of law that arises for determination in this appeal are as follows : This appeal is admitted for considering the following question of law : "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalty on the appellant when the charges against M/s. MNS Exports have been set aside?" The material facts leading up-to this appeal are as follows : M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., situated at 19/3, Konanakunte Village, Bikar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of removal of certain duty free goods by them outside the 100% E.O.U. premises which were stored in the adjoining premises. During the course of verification it was also found that an enquiry was being held in the said matter. The statement of Sri Sreenivasa Rao, was recorded on 12-5-1999 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and he inter alia stated that he was working as Import Assistant. In the beginning M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., was DTA unit and he was entrusted with the Customs Clearance work. In the year 1996, the DTA unit was converted into E.O.U. unit and he was looking after documentation work relating to import and export. Further he states that he was also doing the work relating to import and export and used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in contact with Sri Raviprakash and Sri B. Prasad of M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., who were looking after the Customs formalities and he knew Sri Vikram Jain, the appellant herein of M/s. Texworth International, Bangalore, for a long time even before joining the Department. During the end of 1997. Sri Vikram Jain met him and discussed about the procedure followed by 100% of E.O.U. Sri Vikram Jain suggested to him that since no examination of the imported goods of 100% E.O.U. is being done by Customs at Air Cargo Complex, he could held him to get the goods imported in the name of some 100% E.O.U. who imported fabrics. Accordingly he suggested the name of M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., since he was incharge of the E.O.U. Sri Vikram Jain info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d imported in the name of M/s. MNS Export Private Ltd., the same could not be confiscated. The Commissioner of Excise Duty having held an enquiry and on considering the entire material on record negatived the contentions raised by the appellant herein and gave a finding on the question of fact and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- in exercise of the powers under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 13-9-2000 an appeal was preferred before the CESTAT by the appellant herein Appeal No. 414/2007 and the CESTAT by order dated 3-4-2007 in No. 414/2007 after considering the material facts pertaining to the appellant and scrutinizing the order passed by the Commissioner impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iii) In the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under Section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) In the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. The material on record would clearly show that in the original order passed by the Commissioner detailed reasons have been given about the role played by the appellant herein in recycling the consignment. It is also clear that the appellant herein the proprietor of M/s. Texworth International, Bangalore, had obtained three advance licenses bearing Nos. 07002691, 07002891 and 07001209 from the JDGFT, Bangalore and had conspired with Sri H. Bhaskar, Inspector of Customs to export one consignment of silk fabrics to M/s. Myer's (Fairdinkum) (P) Ltd., Singapore and reimport the same consignment in the name of M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., by declaring the description of the goods as lining material and getting the same cleared withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
