9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Shri G.N. Pai cannot be a reason for claiming that the appellant was in hand in glove for the fraud committed by Shri Pai in diverting the goods imported by him under DEEC scheme. Appellant s company was acting in normal job work activities on the material provided by Shri G.N. Pai. It is not even the case of the Revenue that certain documents or certain evidences have been received showing that the appellant could be attributed with a positive knowledge about the imported nature of the goods. It is evident from Section 112(b) of the Customs Act that positive knowledge or mens rea is an active ingredient for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) - In absence of any positive knowledge, penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited, vide Order No. S/150/13/CSTB/C-I, dated 20-12-2012. It has also been reported that appeal of no other co-noticee is now pending before the Tribunal. Accordingly this appeal has been taken up for consideration. 3.3 Discussing the role of the appellant in the entire proceedings, the Commissioner has in the impugned order observed as follows :- 3.8.4 SHRI KUMAR SAYANI (NOTICEE NO. 4) 3.8.4.1 Shri Kumar Sayani, Director of M/s. Yash Polymers and M/s. Harshly Polymers Pvt. Ltd. in statement dated 20-2-2008 has stated that he knows Mr. G.N. Pai, partner of M/s. Sumira Plastics for last 5 years; that he is involved in the business of manufacturing plastic products in the above companies, that he had undertaken the job work in plastic inj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll aware of the fact that the raw materials supplied were cleared under duty free DEEC Scheme and the resultant products were for export. Shri Kumar Sayani did not ask for any permission from the concerned department whether his company is declared by Shri G.N. Pai as a supporting manufacturer under the provisions of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002. Thus by his acts of omission and commission he has aided and abetted Shri G.N. Pai in diverting the raw materials and finished goods to his factory for job work and sale in the local market. Thus, Shri Kumar Sayani has made himself liable for penal action under the provisions of Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. 3.8.4.3 Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
