9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 and the person importing such goods is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Custom Act, 1962 - The decisions relied upon by the appellants do not advance their case. In the present case the goods were seized and then provisionally released. After provisional release of the goods they have been re-exported. In such as situation the goods are liable for confiscation. Appellants have in their appeal and submissions contended that they have made certain deposits during the course of investigation of the case through Shri Jitender Aggarwal. They have claimed that department should be directed to refund the amount deposited by them. We are not in position to pass any order on this request by the appellants, as the issue sought to be raised by the appellant is not the issue decided by the impugned order - Secondly it is for the appellants to establish their claim to the money deposited and subsequent refunds if any due before the Custom authorities and seek refund from them. Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 85040 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/86702/2019 - Dated:- 24-9-2019 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 10,00,000/- (Rs Ten Lakh Only) (c) M/s R S Enterprises: ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rs Eight Lakh Only) (d) M/s Simplex Enterprises: ₹ 12,00,000/- (Rs Twelve Lakh Only) The aforesaid redemption fine amount has been decided broadly keeping in mind the declared assessable value/ revised assessable value of the impugned goods sought to be illegally brought into India. (v) I order imposition of following penalty on the four firms under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962: (a) M/s United Traders: ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rs Five Lakh Only) (b) M/s Blue Bird Sales: ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rs Five Lakh Only) (c) M/s R S Enterprises: ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rs Four Lakh Only) (d) M/s Simplex Enterprises: ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rs Six Lakh Only) The aforesaid penalty amount has been decided broadly keeping in mind the declared assessable value/ revised assessable value of the impugned goods sought to be illegally brought into India. (vi) I order imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 for use of false and incorrect material on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s United Traders through its proprietor Mr Abhishek Jain. Appellant had filed application for early hearing on the medical grounds, which has been allowed and matter was listed for out of turn hearing for the present appellant. 2.1 We have heard Shri Vikas Sareen, Advocate and Shri A P Kothari, Additional Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 2.2 arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submitted that- He was not at all involved in any of the alleged activity and it was Shri Jitender Aggarwal who had mis used their firm while keeping them under the belief and impression that genuine imports were being made. For this reason they fell into trap and invested money and allowed his firm for the purpose of import of goods. He was not in position to follow up with the imports made due to precarious medical condition of his father who in fact expired on 18.12.2016. There was no illegality attached with the imported goods. There has been true and correct declaration made in respect of the description, quantity, quality and value. This fact is supported by the custom authority wherein it has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or ₹ 13,96,525/- at time of re-export of goods. As the demand drafts were deposited through Jitender Aggarwal, the amounts so deposited by them have not been clarified to be deposited by them but have been shown to be deposited by Jitender Aggarwal. They had approached the custom authority seeking the refund of the amount deposited by them through Jitender Aggarwal, but the same has been denied stating that the appeal is pending before tribunal and any action will be taken as per the order of Tribunal. They had filed the bank accounts statement in support of their contention and also the certificate issued by the bank issuing the demand drafts, wherein it has been specifically stated that the above mentioned Demand Drafts are made from the Account of United Traders in IDBI Bank . (Certificate dated 06.07.2019) In case the appeal is found sustainable on merits tribunal should in terms of Rule 40 and 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules direct the Customs Authority for returning the amounts so deposited by them through Jitender Aggarwal as a consequential relief. 2.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s United Traders (Appellant). 3.3 Appellants have neither in the appeal or during the course of argument contested in respect of the irregularities noticed in the imports made. They have specifically stated that they were not personally responsible for irregularities. These irregularities were caused and committed by one Shri Jitender Aggarwal. They were simply the innocent victims of the misdeeds of Shri Jitender Aggarwal and have suffered huge losses on that account. Once the fact that the goods were imported contrary to provisions of Customs Act, 1962, they become liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the person importing such goods is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Custom Act, 1962. Tribunal has in case HBL Power Systems Ltd [2018 (362) ELT 856 (T-Hyd) laid down the law in case were goods are imported without proper BIS Certification as follows: 4 . Considered arguments on both sides and perused the records. It is not disputed that the steel wires which were imported did not have the BIS certification required as per the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016. It is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction to impose the said two conditions. The learned Additional Solicitor General concedes that the said decision applies to the present case. We do not, therefore, express any view whether that decision can be distinguished in its application to the facts of the present case. On the basis of the concession we hold that the conditions extracted above, being severable from the rest of the other, should be deleted from the said order of the Collector of Central Excise. 3.4 The decisions relied upon by the appellants do not advance their case. In the present case the goods were seized and then provisionally released. After provisional release of the goods they have been re-exported. In such as situation the goods are liable for confiscation as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Weston Components Ltd [2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC)] wherein following law laid down: It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that redemption fine could not be imposed because the goods were no longer in the custody of the respondent-authority. It is an admitted fact that the goods were released to the appellant on an application made by it and on the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
