9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before Authorities, hence no error found in order of Tribunal ordering pre-deposit – Adjudicating Authority has considered involvement of appellant in illegal import of goods by indulging in act of misusing advance licence and evading customs duty on imported goods – Evidence available indicates knowledge and involvement of appellant in import of goods, which established role of appellant – Therefore, we find no justification in modifying order passed by Tribunal – Order of Tribunal stands confirmed – Decided against Appellant. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1235 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Karthik Sundaram For the Respondent : Mr. A. P. Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46080 Kgs valued at ₹ 29,15,522/-, under Section 28(2) of Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of Notification No.43/2002-Cus dated 19.04.2002 Notification No.91/2004 - Cus., dated 10-9-2004 along with applicable interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act 1962 read with the provisions of the aforesaid Notification. iii) I confiscate i.e., two consignments of Polyester Fabrics admeasuring 80465.34 Mtrs. (93265.4 SQM) valued at ₹ 15,15,314/- imported in the name of M/s.Narayan Impex under B/E No.883275 883276 both dated 29.02.2005 which were seized at Chennai Sea Port under 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However I give the option of redeeming the goods on payment fine of ₹ 10 ,00,000 /- (Rupees Ten Lakhs o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Before the Tribunal, the Department relied on the decision of the Tribunal dated 04.12.2014 in Order No.42226-42229 of 2014 in the case of M/s.Naranan Impex and others, associate of the appellant. The Tribunal, taking note of the adjudication order, which was confirmed in appeal, held that when the licence was obtained fraudulently for the purpose of importing goods and avoiding payment of duty, which has been set out in paragraph 23 of the adjudication order, the role of the appellant has been established. Accordingly the Tribunal, passed the following order: 3. On a perusal of the Order-in-Original and the impugned order, it was found that the appellant has not appeared before the Adjudicating authority or before the lower appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant did not appear before the Authorities below. Hence, on the basis of the records, the lower Authorities passed the order. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal ordering pre-deposit. We find that the Adjudicating Authority has considered the involvement of present appellant in the illegal import of goods by indulging in the act of misusing the advance licence and evading customs duty on the imported goods. The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant herein in association with Shri Shyam Bihani entered into a conspiracy with malafide intention to obtain advance licence in the name of M/s.Narayan Impex fradulently for import of goods without payment of duty under the Advance Licence Scheme and to divert them into local mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of thirty days referred to in that proviso : Provided also that where the duty or interest determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account : Provided also that in case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the interest payable thereon under section 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 28(1) and 28AB of Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant Notification No.43/2002 - Cus. dated 19.04.2002 Notification No.91/2004-Cus. dated 10.9.2004 as applicable, upon redemption, if any allowed by the adjudicating authority. v) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114A and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 9. We find that the plea of the appellant that no penalty should be imposed under Section 114A is not correct in view of para (i), (ii) (v) of para 5 of the show cause notice, which we set out above. The show cause notice has been issued in terms of Section 28 along with a demand of penalty under Section 114A as against the importer and the present appellant as well as involved in the fradulent import. The evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
