9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Deputy Commissioner of Custom on which Amit signed under the word "Received" (meaning he received those letters). Therefore, the appellant is clearly covered within the scope of section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 inviting penalty thereunder. - Decided against the appellant - Customs ROA Application No.54508/2014 of Customs Appeal No.C/363/2009/CU[DB] - - - Dated:- 7-12-2015 - G. Raghuram, President And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Khanna, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per R K Singh The appeal is filed against order-in-original dated 30/12/2008 in terms of which inter alia penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer International and Sujata International and it then got an intimation through Telex to release the goods to Rainbow Products, No. 65, Asanda Road, Panipat and the load port agents also forwarded a non-negotiable copy of the amended Bill of Lading. (iii) On the request of Rainbow products, it issued no objection certificates dated 22/2/2007 for amendment of IGMs and issued delivery orders in favour of Rainbow products, (iv) Rainbow Products paid all the relevant charges through cheques, (v) The containers reached the ports in sealed condition and it had no means of verifying the contents thereof. The appellant cited the judgments Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs 1987 (3) BCR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide letters dated 22/2/2007, it is seen that the said letter was never sent to Customs. Indeed, it is evident from copy of the said letters submitted (page 51 and 52 of the appeal papers) that though these letters were addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Customs, these were not sent to him but were handed over to some Amit of Rainbow Products. Customs never received the said letters. It is thus evident that the appellant not only gave delivery order to a company not existent at the given address without conducting any verification, it never intimated Customs regarding change of names of consignees and also did not approach Customs for amendment of the IGMs. These are serious violations inviting consequences. It is also seen that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
