9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the respondents (A1 to A3) is that A1 company had a private bonded warehouse licensed by the Customs Department in the company's factory premises. Between 1982 and 1983, the company imported various raw materials for manufacturing insecticidal formulations and kept at the private bonded warehouse and company clandestinely removed the same between 1982 and 1986 from the said bonded warehouse without the knowledge of the customs authorities and thereby evaded payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 15,92,335/-. 3.The facts leading to the filing of the complaint by the appellant against the respondents are as follows :- (a) The first respondent (A1) is the company. The second and third respondents are the Managing Directors of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se were removed by them without payment of the duty and that the said removal commenced in 1982 and it continued till 1986. On 30-6-1987, the third respondent, another Managing Director, also gave a voluntary statement admitting the clandestine removal of the imported chemicals from the bonded warehouse and sale of the same without payment of the duty. (c) It is also pointed out during the course of enquiry that they fabricated some clearance certificate, as if they had obtained the same from the customs department on payment of the duty for removal of the materials from the bonded warehouse. (d) On 18-8-1987, a show cause notice was issued to A1 to A3 with reference to the above act. Despite the receipt of the show cause notice, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonings given by the trial court, as fairly admitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, to the effect that no offence could be made out, as the bond period of one year has already expired and that the predecessor of Customs Officer was not examined, are, in my view, perfectly unjustified. 8.As a matter of fact, Exs. P-8, P-16 and P-22, the voluntary statements given by the respondents to the Customs Officer on 29-6-1987 and 30-6-1987, would clearly prove that the accused had clandestinely removed the chemicals from the bonded warehouse due to financial difficulties and in order to avoid payment of duty. 9.It is also seen from Ex. P-29, the adjudication order, that the accused did not choose to give any reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is prohibited. 13.I find sufficient force in this contention. Admittedly, the imported goods, which were kept in the bonded warehouse were not available and the same had been removed long back. Therefore, the question of confiscation of the said imported goods under Section 111 of the Act may not arise in this case. 14.Similarly, under Section 72 of the Act, the Officer concerned may demand the owner of such goods directing him to pay full amount of the duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all penalties and in the event of failure of such direction, the Officer concerned may detain the imported goods and sell the same. This provision also would not come into play in this case, since the goods improperly removed fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
