9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to such goods as are held liable to confiscation, is questionable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA. - C/925/2005 - A/85956/17/SMB - Dated:- 21-2-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri G B Yadav, Advocate for the appellant Shri V R Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Order Appeal has been filed against order-in-original no: 04-05/CE/2005 dated 13 th January 2005 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - I. Appellant has been imposed with a penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appellant is holder of Customs House Agent licence in the name of M/s International Shipping Agency at Mumbai which had been cancelled in July 2000 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the unit was initiated for diversion of the imported goods. The appellant has been proceeded against for his alleged involvement in enabling the unit to file bill of entry through certain an agent at Mumbai in the absence of their own licence which appear to have been cancelled. The issue that arises is whether that actually would fall within the meaning of section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel in Halliburton Offshore Services states 4. After hearing both sides and considering the material on records, it is found that :- (a) While there is no proposal of liability to confiscation; no findings and order to confiscate any goods has been arrived under the provisions of Section 111 of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order that confiscation has been restricted to knitted fabrics measuring 39406 meters. It is also noticed that the impugned order records the connection of the appellant with two consignments that were cleared. There is no evidence that the goods which have been confiscated were from either of these consignments and, that too, connected remotely with the appellant. In the absence of evidence of direct knowledge of misuse of the goods after importation, the invoking of section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is applicable only to such goods as are held liable to confiscation, is questionable. For the above reason I set aside the impugned order to the extent appellant is concerned. 8. Appeal allowed. (Pronounced in Court 21/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
