9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case is that the appellant partnership firm involved for arranging and handling the containers which was used for smuggling of contraband goods namely Marlboro Cigarettes, Benson & Hedges, Ball Bearings, Mobile Phones, Electric Irons valued at Rs. 1,84,34,400/-. Smuggling of goods has been admitted by the various persons involved in the import of the said goods. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order confiscated the goods. However, since the goods have been disposed during proceeding the sale, proceeds amount to Rs. 94,73,951/- was appropriated in the Government of India account. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice, therefore I proceed to decide the matter on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai on 10.05.2002, PAN Card No. AOXP6392A bearing photograph of Shri Avinash B. Sarkhot, Invoice No. 0000000 dated NIL of M/s IAL Shipping Agency (Mumbai) Ltd., Quotation of M/s Navmi Enterprises addressed to M/s Universal Trading Corporation, Mumbai were recovered from their office premises, situated at 4th floor, Anna Bhavan, Broach Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400 009. I also find that Shri Vinod Manjrekar has admitted using of licence of M/s Sirgiroh H.R. Khan & Sons, CHA No. 11/399. He has further admitted having discussed with Shri Avinash B. Sarkhot regarding clearance of transshipment consignment, visiting Customs bond department for completion of formalities, taking Shri Sarkhot to M/s IAL Shipping Agency (Mumbai) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability arises against the partnership firm i.e. shifted on partners of partnership firm in the sharing ratio of the partners, therefore in my view the partners cannot be treated different then the partnership firm. With this logic if the penalty imposed on the partnership firm, a separate penalty on the partner will tantamount to double penalty on the same person. I am of the view that if the penalty is imposed on the partnership firm, a separate penalty on its partners should not be imposed. This view is supported by following judgments:- (i) G.M. Enterpirses Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva - 2010 (262) ELT 796 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Gupiter Exports - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
