2013 (11) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ance) Regulations, 1998. The appellant filed the Express Airway Bill No. 07481 and 07482 both dated 19.01.2009 followed by Bill of Entry No. 0463 dated 20.01.2009 addressed to one Shri Ashok, Mumbai and Shri Abdullah, Mumbai both containing 40 numbers of Binoculars of commercial quality each of about Rs.84,000/- and Rs.1,12000/- respectively. The goods were seized as the consignees were non-existent in both the cases. The original authority confiscated the goods absolutely under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground of mis-declaration of the value of the goods and importing them in fictitious name and also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case under Section 112 (a) and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ). He drew the attention of the Bench to the allegations made in the show cause notice, and the proposal in the corrigendum to show cause notice is based on the allegations narrated in the first show cause notice. He further submits that it is clear from the show cause notice that the appellant filed the airway bills on non-existence of the consignees and therefore the appellants attempted to clear the goods illegally. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Punjab State Container & Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. CC (Export) 2012 (278) ELT 330 (Tri.-Mum.). He submits that the appellants contravened the provisions of Regulation and filed the airway bills followed by Bill of Entry in the name of fictitious persons. 5. Af .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h is not disputed by the appellant and therefore, corrigendum to show cause notice is not a fatal issue. The case law relied upon by the Ld. Advocate is not applicable in the present case. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that each show cause notice must be limited to the case that is made out therein by the Revenue. In the present case, the Revenue has not made out any new case in the corrigendum to show cause notice. In fact, the proposal in the corrigendum to show cause notice was based on the facts of the first show cause notice and therefore, the said case law could not apply herein. The other issue, the contention of the Ld. Advocate is that the penalty under the Customs Act cannot be imposed for non-filing of authoris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X