9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, on revision by Ext. P-4 order by the Government of India. The 1st writ petitioner is the firm under the name and style, India Sea Foods. The 2nd writ petitioner is its Managing Partner. In brief, the firm was granted an import licence dated 27-3-1965 to import Refrigeration Compressors except 15 to 150 TRC (Ton Refrigeration Capacity) and controls, for installing cold storage ice plant and blast freezers, and certain other items of goods. It placed an order with Frick Company, Waynesbore, Pennysylvania, U.S.A. through M/s. Bombay Amonia Private Ltd., for supply of two 6'' x 6'' Frick Amonia Compressors, with a capacity of 7.54 TRC at O. Psig Suction Pressure, while running at 450 RPM. When the consignment reached the Port of Cochin, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 five times the value of the goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or one 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 penalty not exceeding five times the difference between the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion alone, namely, that the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act on the firm as well as on the Managing Partner was unjustified and unsustainable in law. We have extracted Section 112(a) of the Act which alone is the material part thereof. Under the provisions of that clause the penalty can be imposed on any person, who, in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation. It can also be imposed on any one who abets the doing or omission of such an act. We do not see, and are unable to understand, why the firm and the partners thereof cannot both be adjudged guilty of contravention or be subjected to a penalty under the provisions of the act. It is possible to find, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , consider him as fully liable to a personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 3. There is some indication to show that the imposition of personal penalty was attacked by the second writ petitioner in the appeals preferred before the departmental authorities and also in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. There is no specific advertence to this aspect of the case nor any finding in regard to this aspect, by the learned single Judge in his judgment. But that is a matter which can cut both ways. Counsel for the appellant fairly realised that having regard to the terms and the language of Section 112(a) of the Act, the extreme contention that a penalty is not imposable both on the firm and also on the Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
