9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were confiscated and personal penalties were imposed under under Section 112(a) of Customs Act for contravention of FTP Policy and Customs Act – Held that:- Commissioner in first imposed penalty on individual persons – Adjudicating authority has dealt issue in detail and modus operandi of floating fictitious firms and imported second hand machinery violating actual user condition which was investigated by D.R.I. – Therefore court hold that appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) – Appellants contravened provisions of Customs Act and EXIM Policy by fraud, collusion, abetting thereby imported goods became liable for confiscation under Section 110 of Customs Act which is clearly established in present case – Accordingly, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.12.2001 remanded the case to the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner of Customs in his de novo impugned order dt. 19.11.2004, confiscated total 370 nos. of second hand printing machinery valued at ₹ 2,57,50,865/- under Section 111 (o) and imposed penalty on all the 11 importers which is reproduced below :- S. No Name of the Importer(Appellants herein) Penalty (Rs.) 1. M/s.DJR Arts, Chennai 3,50,000/- 2. M/s.Kamalam Enterprises, Chennai 50,000/- 3. M/s.Ester Offset Printers, Sivakasi 75,000/- 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants failed to respond to the several hearings fixed, we proceed to decide all the appeals ex-parte on merits based on the documents available on record. 4. Heard Ld. A.R for Revenue who reiterated the findings of the adjudication order. She submits that penalty has been rightly imposed on the appellants and the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of 74 printing machines whereas in the de novo order as per the direction of the Tribunal's order, the Commissioner has confiscated 370 machines. She drew our attention to para 8.1 to 8.9 of OIO and submits that D. Joseph of M/s.DJR Arts had master minded and floated 10 firms under fictitious names using his relatives and imported second hand printing machinery and sold in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty is imposable and dismissed the writ petition filed by the importers. The said judgement of Hon'ble High Court was upheld by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT A264 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision (supra) is reproduced as under :- 4. It is thus clear that the petitioners who are in the business of marble and have become a habitual importer of goods inspite of the fact that they are very well aware of the law that the imports have to be backed by a valid licence. Inspite of this, if the petitioners are repeatedly including in importing marbles without licence, or subsequently obtain licence to cover up illegal imports then it would be a duty of writ Court to arrest such tendenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported goods became liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act which is clearly established in the present case. Accordingly, the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) for contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962. However, taking into overall facts and circumstances case, and also taking into consideration of the penalties imposed in the first OIO dt. 25.8.2000, we reduce the penalties imposed on the respective importer-appellants as under :- S. No. Appeal No. Appellant Penalty Imposed Penalty Reduced (Rs.) 1. C/151/ 2005 V. Solomon Jayapandian, Prop. of Maragatham Graphics 3,00,000 1,00,000 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
