9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. C/693/2000 - Final Order No. 1066/2007 - Dated:- 30-8-2007 - [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - Following intelligence received about diversion of mulberry raw silk imported duty-free against advance licences in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, investigation was conducted into the imports made by M/s. Aniam Niryat, Hyderabad. Shri Amit Agarwal, Managing Partner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation, M/s. N.R. Babu Bros., violations involved in the transactions were adjudicated in the impugned order. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport) demanded the exemption availed by M/s. Aniam Niryat in respect of imported mulberry raw silk sold in the indigenous market from the importer, M/s. Aniam Niryat and imposed penalties on M/s. Aniam Niryat, M/s Gokul Textiles Corporation and M/s. N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. We have studied the records of the case and the submissions, M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation is a partnership firm. The Managing partner of M/s. Aniam Niryat had contacted Shri Madhusudan Jhanwar, partner of M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation for assistance in disposing the raw silk imported availing exemption under the DEEC Scheme. As per the statement given by Shri Madhusudan Jhanwar, he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(b) of the Customs Act. Section 112 (b) provides for imposing penalty on a person who deals with goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Therefore penalty cannot be imposed under Section 111(b) on a firm like the appellants. We find that the order imposing penalty on the appellants is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
