9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is application filed by Shri A.V. Swamy, Managing Director of M/s. Sharpscan Prints Ltd. (SPL) has sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). 2. After hearing both sides on the stay application, the appeal proper is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides. SPL had imported a five color Heidelberg speed master Model SM 74-5 and one Polar cutter model 115E under Bill of Entry dated 31-3-1998. The goods were cleared under EPCG scheme availing exemption under Notification No. 28/97 dated 1-4-97. The importer SPL failed to fulfil the conditions of the notification in that it did not manufacture and export goods subject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the offending transaction which rendered the goods liable for confiscation. It is submitted that Section 111(o) was invoked prematurely as the competent licensing authority had extended the time limit for discharging export obligation upto the year 2010. Another ground is that for relocating the machines at a premises not approved as per the endorsement in the EPCG licence, the authority competent to penalize the importer or its Managing Director was the DGFT and not the Commissioner of Customs. Ld. Counsel representing the appellant reiterates the grounds taken in the appeal and submits that the appeal filed by the importer against demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty on the same grounds was allowed by the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the licensing authority (DGFT) to take action against the licensee for such breach....." 4. For the reasons already noted, we set aside the demand of duty as premature. As the order of confiscation is also on the same ground as the one on which duty was demanded, it will also stand vacated. It goes without saying that the penalty cannot subsist when the goods are not liable for confiscation. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed." 6. As the finding of offence of rendering the imported goods liable for confiscation to penalize the importer was found to have been incorrectly made, a functionary of the importer firm could not be penalized for having abetted the same offence. In the result, the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
