9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts relied upon in the SCN shall be provided to them - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/41163 to 41167/2016 - 40611-40615-2017 - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the appellants Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER All these appeals being on similar issue, they are taken up together for common disposal. 2. For convenience, the facts of the appeals in M/s. Sri Laxmi Vijaya Saw Mills (C/41167/2016) are brought out as under:- i) In-bond Bill of Entry No.9845217 dated 13.04.2013 was filed on behalf of M/s. Golden Timbers for warehousing imported Papua New Guinea Origin Kwila Regular and Small round logs supplied by one M/s. Adon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any purchase order or received any proforma invoice or any other related documents from the purported supplier M/s. Adonis, Hongkong and they have not filed the Bill of Entry either. Photocopy of the letter purported to be from M/s, Golden Timbers conveying cancellation of the same was shown to him and there upon he has stated that the signature in the said letter is not his signature, they have not authorized anybody to use their IEC number and that the letter head is not their company's letter head. However, statements recorded from the employees of the customs broker do not appear to confirm these allegations of the department. 3. On the other hand, it is seen that in a statement recorded from Shri S. Nelson Arul Raj, Import Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty in favour of the department pending proceedings initiated. Appeal filed by the department against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was dismissed and the amendment as directed by the High Court was effected. 4. Subsequently, after due process of adjudication, vide OIO dated 30.04.2015, the original authority confiscated the seized goods, however, gave an option to the appellant M/s Sri Laxmi Vijaya Saw Mills to redeem the same on payment of ₹ 1,50,000/under Section 125 of the Act, Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was also imposed on the customs broker. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order dated 08.03.2016, rejected the appeal of this appellant. 5. The other appeals of M/s. Arunesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore nothing but the retraction of the statement date 12.12.2013 recorded from one of the partners, Shri Nisar Ahmed. Ld. Advocate contends that the fact of this retraction was not taken into account either by the original authority or by the lower appellate authority. He also submitted written submissions, the main arguments thereunder can be summarized as follows:- i) The imported wooden timber logs imported are admittedly not prohibited for import and in fact, are freely importable goods; besides there is also no dispute raised by the Revenue regarding its value or rate of duty or quantum of duty payable on the said goods. ii) The lower appellate authority failed to properly appreciate that Hon'ble High Court in its order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 111 (d) and (m) of the Act totally bad in law. v) Without prejudice to the above submissions appellants submit that since section 111 (d) of the Act only contemplates confiscation of goods imported when prohibited for import and not otherwise, the orders passed by the lower authorities holding the goods liable for confiscation under the said provision is totally devoid of any merits since the timber logs imported are freely importable and no restrictions are imposed for its importation. In any case and without prejudice the appellants submit that section 7 of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 invoked by the original authority by observing that the goods were imported fraudulently without an IEC could in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 defining the term importer. viii) The respondent also ought to have known that the opting importer has been treated to be the importer by amending the Bill of Entry and the subject goods assessed and cleared to him, the action of the authorities below in confiscating the goods and directing the said importer to pay redemption fine when he has not committed any act or omission to render the goods liable for confiscation, makes the order totally bad in law. 5.2 Similar ground of appeal have been submitted in respect of other appeals also. 6. On the other hand, Id AR Shri S. Govindarajan, AC, supports the adjudication. 7. From the facts that emerged, what comes to the fore is that some of the vital documents relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
