9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, levied by the Adjudicating Authority, which came to be upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, is correct? 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned order as well as the Order-in-Original and Show Cause Notice, which are relevant for my consideration, inter alia, are that the Bill-of-Entry No. 9553735 dated 04.05.2017 was filed by the importer M/s. Ekdant Enterprises, Maharashtra (IEC No. 0316508951) through their Customs Broker M/s. Map Shipping and Co. for the clearance of goods declared as "Furniture, Plastic Buttons, Porcelain Tiles, etc." supplied by M/s. Zhejiang Beiyi Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd., China vide Invoice No. YHD201706158 dated 29.03.2017 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the confiscation of goods proposed under Section 111(l) and 111(m) ibid. relate only to an importer of goods; that since theft of the detained goods was involved against which a police complaint had already been filed by the Container Freight Station (CFS), the same would not justify imposition of penalty under the Customs Act on these appellants; that even there is no whisper or finding that these appellants were the beneficial owners of the goods imported and that the Revenue had also not established that the act or omission on the part of these appellants had rendered the goods in question liable for confiscation. 4.2 In support, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner v. Sushil Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghava is said to have stated that he came to know only in November 2017 that the said container was removed illegally from the CFS when such illegal removal had happened on 16.09.2017, is a matter of serious concern since the consignment was admittedly in the custody of the CFS and for nearly two months (from 16.09.2017 to November 2017), the Preventive Officer was not even aware of the alleged illegal removal. In any case, Mr. Karthikeyan has only pointed out that documents pertaining to M/s. Sky and Sea Exports were given by these appellants, which were to be filed with the Department. The Revenue has not brought on record as to how the above fact was relevant for the alleged illegal removal of the consignment and as to how these unconnec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
