9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. But in view of absence of any finding as to consideration received by the appellant for assisting the main accused and also in absence of any finding as to any role of appellant in export of the clay powder in the guise of garlic powder, the penalty is being reduced from ₹ 5000/- to ₹ 2000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/89011/14-Mum - - - Dated:- 22-6-2015 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Stelin Mathew, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. J. Sahu, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) ORDER PER: ANIL CHOUDHARY: The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Rajiv Praful Kamdar, the appellant herein being aggrieved by Order-in-Original No. 71/2014/CAC/CC(ADJ)SJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the persons nominated by Mr. Desai and Mr. Verma. 3. The Revenue initiated enquiry against M/s. Frost International Ltd. for alleged misuse of advance licence and scheme by deviating garlic imported duty-free in the local market for profit. Further to fulfil the export obligation, they attempted to export clay powder by mis-declaring the same as garlic powder. Intelligence also indicated that the imports and exports through JNPT is being managed by one Nirmal Agarwal. Further facts are that out of balance of 910 MT, 390 MT garlic having assessable value of ₹ 52,09,228/ was imported through Chennai Port, through CHA M/s. Guru Shipping and Clearing services, Chennai. The total duty exemption availed in respect of clearance of 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not found fit for settlement and referred back to the adjudicating authority. Further with respect to the 104 MT of garlic in question that was imported but matching export not made after processing and that the goods exported were undoubtedly clay powder and not garlic powder. In the application of settlement by Frost International Ltd. before the settlement commission, it was held that this appellant is also involved in aiding and abetting in diversion of the imported garlic in the local market which was supposed to be re-exported after processing. Accordingly, a penalty of ₹ 5000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal on the ground among othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handled on executed any documents of title. It is further stated that the condition precedent for imposing penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act is that any person, who acquires position of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 shall be liable for penalty. It is further urged that no case of the made by the revenue that the appellant have been acting malafidely, knowing fully well that the goods are imported duty-free and under bond for the re-export after processing. Accordingly he prays for setting aside the penalty imposed upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
