9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved with a notice dated 27th November, 1976, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner and why penalties should not be imposed on the petitioner under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, in terms of the guarantee furnished by the petitioner under Section 42 of the said Act. It is to be noted that 1472 cases of vegetable oil were found to be short in the consignment. This was a cargo which was shipped by Lutheran World Relief Inc. to the Food Corporation of India. This cargo consisted of vegetable oil and out of the total 2632 cases of vegetable oil, 1472 cases were delivered short. This was a gift cargo under PL 480 and was meant for distribution amongst the poor in India. The procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order or the earlier order dated 7th November, 1976 could be made against his client, because according to him the proceedings were barred by limitation. It is to be noted that at the time of the earlier application and/or disposal thereof, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, did not raise any such contention before the court. If he had any such contention then it should have been raised at that time; on the other hand he asked for an opportunity to be heard. 5. Furthermore, this proceeding under Section 116 was really commenced by the Notice to show cause which was within a reasonable time after the goods were unloaded. It is not the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the said notice was issued beyond limitation. What he tried to contend, was, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder the value of the duty is mentioned to be Rs. 1,93,000/-. That value of Rs. 1,93,753.33 paise appears to have been increased to Rs. 2,42,441.66 paise. No materials have been discussed in the judgment as to how this duty amount could increase. I think that under the circumstances the order for increase of penalty is without any basis foundation, and in any event there are no reasons given in the impugned order for this increase, nor was the petitioner given any notice that there was any error in calculation of the duty amount in the previous order. 7. In that view of the matter, the order in so far as it increases the amount of penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of the original amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- the same is bad and without any fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
