9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier consignment or that the appellant was aware of similarly discrepancy in the goods handled earlier by him. Furthermore, the appellant was not shown as having dealt with the goods in any manner before or after clearance to counter the claim of having been concerned only with filing of bill of entry. Goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 which is contingent only upon incorrect that declaration in bills of entry for clearance. No evidence has been brought on record to establish that the appellant was aware of the presence of branded products in the consignment when bills were filled as only such act of omission and commission rendering goods liable for confiscation then would lead to penalty under section 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel further submitted that the appellant was not in any way concerned with the identity of goods and that declaration had been filed solely in accordance with documentation furnished by the importer. He also submitted that the finding of 19.5 As regards the contention that Shri Samir shah was only a employee of M/s Wairkar, I find Shri Samir was working with CHA firm, M/s Accurate which had cleared the earlier consignments of M/s. N.V. Associates. Shri Mukund Warkar in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, has stated that the jobs or M/s N.V. Associates were brought to their office by Samir Shah. Shri Samir Shah has himself admitted that Shri Deepak Shah had contacted him (Samir Shah) for clearance of his goods. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very ground for earlier imports identically declared. 4. It would appear that the admission of alleged discrepancy in the 42 consignment imported earlier by M/s N V Associates was, in the absence of any examination report adduced in the impugned proceedings and owing to solely statements recorded during investigation, presumed by the original authority. It would appear that the case against the appellant is built on a statement confirming the facts relating to latest consignment that alone had been subjected to examination. There is nothing on record to establish that branded goods were contained in the earlier consignment or that the appellant was aware of similarly discrepancy in the goods handled earlier by him. Furthermore, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
