9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are justified Confiscation of the goods and also imposition of redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation upheld. A penalty of Rs.15 lakhs each has been imposed on the appellant firm and its partner, Mr.Ashok Jain, under the provisions of Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - partner, Shri Ashok Jain is the main person behind the attempt to evade import duty. Therefore, he is also liable to penalty under the above provisions as the act has been committed with a deliberate intent to evade payment of duty - C/84 & 85/11 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2012 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri Neerav R. Manikar, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (AR) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment dated 20.06.10 he, inter alia, admitted that after issue of Notification 47/09 dated 12.5.09 which imposed anti-dumping duty @ 223% ad varolem on various goods including injection moulding machines imported from China, he placed an order for one such machine with M/s. M.K. Plastic Machinery (M) SDN BHD, Malaysian through their representative Mr. Lai Mook Khian. The certificate of origin dated 5.10.09 issued by the Malaysian Chambers of commerce and industry indicated the machines to be of Malaysian origin. Another certificate of origin dated 31.3.10 in respect of the very same goods was issued by Federation of Malaysian manufacturers. Both these certificates of origin were signed by Mr. Lai Mook Khian on behalf of M/s. M.K. Plastic Mac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority which was rejected vide the impugned order. Hence the appellants are before us. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions:- (1) The certificate of origin submitted by the appellant clearly shows that the goods are of Malaysian origin. He submits that some of the parts comprising the goods have been obtained from other countries as can be seen from the proforma invoice dated 29.7.2009. That does not mean that the goods are of Chinese origin as held by the adjudicating and appellate authorities. (2) The rules of origin stipulates that for any goods to be certified as origin of Malaysia only the following condition needs to be satisfied, namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. M.K. Plastic Machinery (M) and a certificate is signed by Mr. Siti Hindon Bimti of Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In the said certificate, there is no mention whatsoever of the percentage of local content. The second certificate of origin has been issued in respect of the same machinery has been issued by the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers and is dated 31.3.10. This certificate is also signed by Mr. Lai Mook Khian and the issuing authority is one Mr. Nasri Bin Hamdan, Branch Executive of Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. The signature of Nasri Bin Hamdan has been verified by the consular Division of Ministry of External Affairs, Malaysia. However, the said ministry has also stated that they are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls are of Japanese origin. In his the statement, Shri Ashok Jain, partner of M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, has clearly admitted that the machine is of Chinese origin and similar to the four machines imported earlier of Chinese origin. The enquiry conducted by the investigating authority through the First Secretary (Commerce), High Commission of India, Singapore, clearly reveals that M/s. M.K. Plastic Machinery is registered as a trader in machinery and equipment and the company does not have any manufacturing facility and the machinery imported into India by M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers does not appear to have been manufactured by M/s. M.K. Plastic Machinery (M), Malaysia. Thus department has add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs.15 lakhs each has been imposed on the appellant firm and its partner, Mr.Ashok Jain, under the provisions of Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the appellant has produced a false certificate of origin with an intent to evade payment of anti-dumping duty, the penalties on the appellants are justified and we uphold the same. It is also noted that the partner, Shri Ashok Jain is the main person behind the attempt to evade import duty. Therefore, he is also liable to penalty under the above provisions as the act has been committed with a deliberate intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we reject the same. 7. The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
