9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qua goods imported or exported while penalty is qua persons, whether natural or artificial. There is no scope under Customs Act, 1962 for separate confiscation qua persons and to be determined by disaggregation of noticees to the adjudication proceedings. The show cause notice is clear and, in no uncertain terms, alleged that the goods are liable for confiscation in accordance with the manner provided in section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 would follow to the extent that noticees in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 which, therefore, implies that, only to the extent that a person was thus responsible by acts of omission or commission in contributing to the cause that lead to confiscation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 128/2005/CAC/CC(I)/AKP dated 30th November 2005 ] , Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I, holding that the clearances had been permitted against project implementing authority certificates (PIAC) that was found to be forged and, therefore, ineligible, went on to find that 54. Shri M Sunderraman, Director(Finance) for RCF and Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, Chief Manager (liaison) of RCF are the two persons who perpetrated the fraud on behalf of M/s RCF by colluding with Uhde India Ltd and Shri Rakesh Yadav in obtaining the forged certificates. They are therefore liable for penal action u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 55. As regards the role of M/s ICICI bank Ltd. though they might not have been directly involved in the act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly abettors in this case liable for penal action u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that these two appeals had been originally listed together with those of M/s Rashtriya Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd and M/s ICICI Bank Ltd but that the Tribunal, vide final order [ final order no. A/86681-86682/2021 dated 1st July 2019 ] , held that 1.2 Though the appeals of all the noticees/appellants were tagged and listed for hearing we directed for de-tagging/delinking the appeals of all other Appellants except for the two appellants i.e. M/s Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd. (Appellant 1) and M/s ICICI Bank Ltd (Appellant 2). So we are in present order dealing with the appeals filed by these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or xxxxx 4.38 Commissioner observation that the Appellant 1 was direct beneficiary of the Acts of contractor and Shri Rakesh Yadav, forging the countersignature, cannot be the reason for imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a). Section 112 (a) as worded requires leading more positive evidence to establish the act of omission or commission or abetment on the part of the person which made goods liable for confiscation, for imposition of penalty. In this case where we find that Appellant 1, have acted bonafidely throughout and made all efforts to comply with conditions of notification, the penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
