9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself and, therefore, after disposing the stay applications, we take up the appeals for disposal. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Ravi Enterprise and M/s. Shree Maruthi Impex imported "Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn/Silk Yarn" without payment of duty, under Advance Licence claiming benefit of exemption notification No.96/2009-Cus. dt.11.9.2009 subject to the condition that the resultant product would be exported. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during investigation found that earlier both the importers imported such goods and submitted false declaration and duty free imported goods were diverted into local market. Subsequently, DRI officers seized consignments of Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn attempted to be cleared duty free under Advance Licences, where both the importers filed Bills of Entry. Both the importers claimed that they purchased the imported goods from High Seas Sellers. The High Sea Sellers filed representation before the Commissioner of Customs to release the seized goods to them on the ground that they are the owners of the goods as the importers had not paid consideration of the goods to them. 3.1 High Sea Sellers namely M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Additional Director General, DRI, Ahmedabad proposing to deny benefit of exemption notification in respect of the live consignments and demand of duty in respect of live consignments and the past consignments along with interest and penalties and also there is proposal for confiscation of the goods. It appears that show cause notices dated 14.3.2011 was not placed before the Tribunal on 27.6.2011. 3.5 Despite the direction of the Tribunal by order dt. 27.6.2011 to decide the matter within 2 months, no order was passed in respect of release of goods and therefore, High Sea Sellers again filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court to release the seized goods. By order dt. 12.9.2012, the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.29100 of 2011 directed the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Exports) Chennai to consider the request of the appellant for release of the goods in question and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 3.6. In terms of order dt. 12.9.2012 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Commissioner of Customs (Export) passed Order-in-Original No.19798 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order dt. 22.11.2012, the Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim of the two High Sea Sellers, foreign supplier and the importer (M/s.Ravi Enterprises) but in the subsequent adjudication orders, he confirmed the demand of duty jointly and severally which is totally contradictory and against the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. 1962. b) Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 but it was not mentioned to whom the goods will be released. c) In respect of live consignment, vide Order-in-Original dt. 12.6.2013, duty was demanded against 5 noticees and interest was confirmed against four noticees, which is again a contradiction, and misconceived. Adjudicating authority has not mentioned the name of the noticees in respect of demand of interest. d) Penalty was imposed on the High Seas Sellers, when the goods are lying with the department which is totally contrary to law and facts and unsustainable. e) Regarding live consignments, Bills of Lading would indicate the name of the High Sea Sellers which was not endorsed in favour of M/s.Ravi Enterprises and the documents were produced before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that at any rate, the appellant was not involved in the alleged irregularity. 4.3 Mr. Jayabalan, Advocate on behalf of M/s. Shreepal Silks and Sarees and Jiju Silk Mills adopts the submission of Ld. Senior Advocate. 4.4 Dr. S.Krishnandh, Advocate appearing on behalf of CHAs Viz. M/s. R.Senthilkumar, Manjunatha Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd. and Super Shipping Services submits that they were not involved in the alleged irregularity as they have only filed the Bills of Entry against live consignment as per instructions of the importer. He further submits that during relevant period, the assessment was the responsibility of the proper officer, who verified the goods and granted benefit exemption benefit to the importers. 4.5 Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant M/s.Patel Carrier Transport Service and its partner, Shri Vijay Suresh Shah submits that penalty was imposed on both partnership firm and as well as its partner. He submits that Commissioner observed that there is no involvement of the appellants in dealing with the goods and therefore no penalty could be imposed on them. 5. Learned Authorised Representative Shri M. Rammohan Rao on behalf of Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider the request of the appellant for the release of the goods in question and pass appropriate order thereon, on merits in accordance with law. The Adjudicating authority by the impugned order dt. 22.12.2012 rejected the claim on the basis of allegation of fraud committed in the show cause notice. There are another proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notices proposing demand of duty to the importers and others against the present seized goods and the past consignments, where the goods have already been cleared. The main contention of the Ld. Senior Advocate is that the Adjudicating authority had not considered the evidences and provisions of various laws, such as Bill of Lading Act, Customs Act etc. placed by them to decide the ownership of the seized goods as claimed by the High Sea Sellers. It is noted that as per section 2 (26) of Customs Act, 1962, the word "importer" includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer, at any time of importation of goods. Section 110A of the said Act, provides any goods seized under section 110 of the Act may be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
