9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase was in contravention of the provisions of the Import Export (Control) Order. It was therefore contended that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further alleged that the actual goods did not correspond in material particulars with the description made thereof in the bill of entry. On this ground the goods were alleged to be liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the said Act. The liability of such goods to such confiscation was further alleged under Section 111(p) of the Act for failure of the concerned persons to comply with the provisions of Section iv(a) of the said Act. The provisions of Section 123 of the Act were also invoked. It was further alleged that several persons including the present two appellants were also alleged to be liable to penalty under Section 112 of the said Act. The Collector of Customs, Mumbai passed order, dated 19-4-1988 which is not on record in these proceedings. However on record are two orders of the Tribunal allowing the appeals made by the present two appellants and remanding their cases for de novo consideration. Such directions were made for TVP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the circumstances of the case, the prohibition in the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 did not apply where the goods were imported under the cover of licences held by a canalising agency and where letters of authority were issued to eligible persons. 5.We have considered these submissions and also the arguments made by Shri Choubey thereupon. 6.We have perused the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Although the complaint before the court followed the same lines as of the show cause notice the significant departure is the whereas the show cause notice makes BVVM a co-noticee of TVP, before the trial court BVVM was not made an accused. BVVM was a proprietary concern of Aditya Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Shri Rasiklal R. Doshi was the director therein who had allegedly been the key person to have transacted with TVP. In the show cause notice he was one of the noticees allegedly liable to penalty. In the prosecution proceedings, however, he was prosecution witness No. 1. 7.In his findings, the learned Magistrate discussed the entire evidence in an order running into 408 pages. He examined each facet of the evidence laid by the department. Summary of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings where the facts and charges were identical. The court also observed that it would be a strange predicament where the accused is released in one proceedings and is convicted in the other proceedings. The Tribunal also examined the later judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K.P. Abdul Mazid 1995 (79) E.L.T. 554. In this judgment the High Court had observed that acquittal in a criminal prosecution per se was no justification to absolve that person in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal had also noted the findings of the single member judgment reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 704. In this judgment it was held that in spite of exoneration by the trial court, if so warranted under the facts and circumstances, the adjudicator could take a different view. In the cited judgment dated 29-9-1997 the Tribunal held that where the facts were the same the reasoning of the Collector that certain facts were not discussed by the Magistrate could not enable him to arrive at a decision contrary to the findings of the Magistrate. 10.In the present case we have perused the entire judgment of the learned Magistrate. We also observe that identical allegations were made by both the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subjects to which a licence may be granted. (2) A licence granted under this Order may contain such other conditions, not inconsistent with the Act or this Order, as the licensing authority may deem fit. (3) It shall be deemed to be a condition of every such licence that: - (i) no person shall transfer and no person shall acquire by transfer any licence issued by the licensing authority except under and in accordance with the written permission of the authority which granted the licence or of any other person empowered in this behalf by such authority. (ii) that the goods for the import of which a licence is granted shall be the property of the licensee at the time of import and thereafter upto the time of clearance through Customs. Provided that the conditions under item (i) and (ii) of this sub-clause shall not apply in relation to licences issued to the State Trading Corporation of India, the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India and other similar institutions or agencies owned or controlled by the Central Government and which are entrusted with canalisation of imports. (iii) the goods for the import of which a licence is granted shall be now goods, other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
