9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is permissible where a person, against whom action is taken, has a mens rea. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how in law redemption fine or confiscation could be automatic, irrespective of mens rea. On the other hand, there are judgments in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Sneha Sales Corporation [ 1998 (9) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] and UOI v. Sampat Raj Dugar [ 1992 (1) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein the view taken in East India Commercial Company Limited's case [ 1962 (5) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] was followed and which view was also followed in Taparia Overseas (P) Limited v. UOI [ 2003 (1) TMI 127 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , holding that the purchaser of imported goods, having no knowledge of any viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of confiscation as shown against each :- S. No. Name of Importer S. No. of Machine Seized from Value (in Rs.) Fine in lieu of confiscation 1. M/s. Venus Industries 10724 Khatta of Kuldip Singh 2,25,000/- 75,000/- -do- 13308 2,25,000/- 75,000/- 2. -do- 31906 Deepak Knitters 2,50,000/- 80,000/- 3. M/s. Shree Ambaji Textiles 45416 Beauty Knittings (P) Ltd. 6,50,000/- 2,50,000/- 4. -do- 37560 -do- 6,50,000/- 2,50,000/- The following machines appearing at Sr. Nos. 1, 6, 17 and 18 of annexure of show cause notice are liable to confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand only) on Sh. Kuldip Singh under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penal proceedings against S/Shri Vinod Kumar, Sarabjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Ajay Behl, Romt Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Nitin Arora, Darshan Lal, Smt. Shashi Kapoor, M/s. B.K. Textiles and M/s. Sharma and Arora Knitters are dropped." 4. In appeal filed by the respondents, the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal modified the order of the Adjudicating Officer to the following effect :- "In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is modified against appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been reduced in the discretion of the Tribunal. 8. As regards, respondents No. 3 and 9, it has been found that they were bona fide purchasers without any knowledge of ineligibility of the sellers. Having regard to the statutory provisions, providing, for redemption fine or confiscation of goods, it is patent that such an action is permissible where a person, against whom action is taken, has a mens rea. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how in law redemption fine or confiscation could be automatic, irrespective of mens rea. 9. On the other hand, there are judgments in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Sneha Sales Corporation, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) and UOI v. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
