9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the appellant cannot be accepted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/75380/2014 - FO/75241/2018 - Dated:- 15-1-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) None for the Appellant (s) Sri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant. By letter dated 08.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh in violation of Section 7(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in contravention of the Section 11 ibid read with various provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The Appellant herein is the Proprietor of M/S. Ajmera Brothers of Fancy Bazar, Guwahati who on 27.07.2009 deposed that he is a whole seller of Rice and sold the rice to M/s. Lokenath Traders, Agartala. The Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consignee of the 18 MT (360 bags) of rice. M/s. Loknath Traders is non existent. These shows the cash memo issued by M/s. Ajmera Brothers is fictitious in terms of quantity and non existent consignee. The challan for 360 bags of rice issued by M/s. Ajmera Brothers was handed over by the Dalal to the driver of the truck. In the light of this, I am of the view that M/s. Ajmera Brothers is very muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Linctus. I therefore find Shri Mahabir Prasad Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Ajmera Brothers involved in concealing, transporting and dealing with the seized goods and thus liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act 1962. 4. The appellant in his appeal stated that the Driver of the said Truck never stated that the said bags of Rice were loaded in presence of the appellant. In fact, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
