9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dealer in silver and scrutiny of the appellants accounts by the authorities revealed contravention of provisions Rule 4(1) to (5) of Specified Goods (Prevention of Illegal Export) Rules, 1969 and consequently as the appellant was found to have not complied with the provisions of Section 11L of the Customs Act, 1962, proceedings were instituted against the appellant as per law which ultimately culminated in the impugned order now appealed against. 3. In respect of sale of total quantity of 1496.298 kgs. of silver effected by the appellant between 22-11-1979 to 16-4-1980, precise particulars of the persons to whom the appellant sold were not available in the accounts of the appellant as enjoined on him by Section 11L of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant. The J.D.R. further submitted that even though the appellant has sold silver on various dates, since scrutiny of the accounts took place on a particular date, viz. 3rd May, 1980, different show cause notices need not be issued. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. Under Section 11M of the Act in respect of specified goods, such as silver as in this case, every person who sells the same, shall obtain on his copy of the sale or transfer voucher the signature and full postal address of the person to whom such sale or transfer is made and shall also take such other reasonable steps as may be specified by rules to satisfy himself as to the identity of the purchaser and if after an enquiry made by a proper Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 10. Regarding the contention of the appellant that impugned order would stand vitiated by reason fact that the enquiry was not conducted by the proper Officer within the meaning of Section 11M read with Section 2(34) of the Act, I do not find any substance in this submission either. This is a case where as rightly contended by J.D.R. the adjudication order had been passed by the Additional Collector. When the adjudicating proceedings had been conducted by the Additional Collector himself, the plea that no proper Officer conducted the enquiry is totally devoid of any substance. The J.D.R. brings to my notice that general instructions have been issued by the Board as well as by the Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of sale would not arise at all under the provisions of law. 13. At this stage, the learned Counsel submitted that he is not pressing the points he has urged and would merely pray for reduction of the penalty. It was urged that the appellant has never been involved in any offence in the past and this being the first time, the contravention may be viewed with leniency. I find from the records that the Board has persuaded itself to take a lenient view and reduce the penalty from ₹ 50.000/- to ₹ 25,000/-. However, taking into consideration the background and facts and circumstances of the case, the status and antecedent of the appellant, I feel interests of justice would be met if the penalty is reduced to ₹ 20,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
