9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 34(f) against holding them they were bonafide transferees. In the appeal memo we do not find anything stated by which this finding of the Commissioner can be challenged. No appeal could be considered on the basis of such vague statements made in the appeal memo. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/Cross/144 of 2008 And Customs Appeal No. 839 of 2008, 1275 of 2008, 1276 of 2008, 1277 of 2008, 1278 of 2008, 1279 of 2008, 1280 of 2008, 1281 of 2008, 1282 of 2008, 1283 of 2008 - A/86871-86880/2019 - Dated:- 24-9-2019 - Hon ble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Ramesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA These appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the Order In Original No 38/2008/CAC/CC/KS dated 26.03.2008 of the Commissioner Customs (Export) Air Cargo Mumbai. By the impugned order Commissioner has held as follows: ORDER A I. Customs duty demanded on the goods covered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,878/- is confirmed under section 28 AB of the Customs Act, 1962. V. The goods referred to at Sr.No. (I) to (III) above having CIF value of ₹ 16,84,222/- is confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of ₹ 4,21,050/- is imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation. VI(i) Penalty of ₹ 30,00,000/- is imposed on M/s. Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt. Ltd. under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. VI(ii) A penalty of ₹ 7,50,000/- is imposed on Shri Anil B. Goradia, Director of Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 Respondent 1 namely M/s Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt Ltd had obtained an Advance License for duty free import of various goods including 4464 pieces of Ball Bearings, on the basis of Chartered Engineer Certificate submitted by them at time of making the application for the License. No SION existed for the specific export machineries. 2.2 Though application for license was made on 26.09.1994, the license No 207983 was issued on 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese seven firms M/s Tulja Overseas, M/s Goodrick Enterprises M/s Vinayak Sales were benami firms. In view of the above, the adjudicating authorities order is not a speaking order. In view of the above, the departments appeal in case of M/s Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt Ltd may also be allowed by way of remand. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments on appeal. 4.2 The appeal filed by the Respondent 1 i.e. M/s Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt Ltd has been dismissed by the Tribunal under Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules as the company has wound up and no application under the said rule was made by the official liquidator. Since the company itself has been wound up we are not in position to accept the submissions made by the revenue that the appeal against Respondent No 1 should be allowed and matter remanded back. Even if such request was to be allowed then it would be an excise in futility as on the date of remand the respondent No 1 do not exist. 4.3. The appeals filed by Shri Anil Garodia and others have been dismissed by the tribunal on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may at the request of the person concerned be oral. 10. It provides that an order for confiscation of the imported goods may be made after giving a show cause notice to the importer of the goods. It also provides for imposition of fine. 11. Section 125 reads as under:- 125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.-(1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt decision as referred to above the duty determined by the adjudicating authority is normal consequence to the redemption of the confiscated goods. Hence any person, who seeks to redeem the confiscated goods, is required to pay the duty determined in view of the provisions contained in Section 125(2) of Customs Act, 1962. Hence we do not find any merits in the submissions made by the appellants that demand should have been confirmed also against the respondents who were the innocent transferee of the fraudulently amended licence. 4.6 We also take note of the various decisions of tribunal wherein it has been categorically laid down that at the material time there was no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 for confirmation of demand severally and jointly against the co-noticees in the proceedings initiated by a common show cause notice. Some of such decisions are reproduced below: Vision Inc and Arun Kumar Gupta [Final Order dated 28.02.2010 in Customs Appeal No C/261, 262,263 264/2009] held as follows: 10. It is made clear that it will not be open to the Commissioner to order for recovery jointly and severally inasmuch as it is inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
