Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (11) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otice dt. 2-2-98 proposing to impose penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act. It resulted in the adjudication order dt. 16-10-98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat Ahmedabad by Order-in-Original No. 5/COMMR/98 APP, dt. 16-10-1998 where under the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.70 crores. The Tribunal partially allowed this appeal against that order an Appeal C-39/99 before the Tribunal was filed. In the adjudicating order confiscated of the contended goods as well as penalties were imposed on other notice mentioned in the show cause notice referred to above however by impugned order the appeal of other two noticees were allowed i.e. M/s. H. Kumar Gems importer and Ms. Sunita Goel a licence broker. The imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 69.984.00 gms. Value of Rs. 2,71,13,968.00 each were cleared under Bill of Entry Nos. 4011 and 4012/97, dated 8-8-97, and one consignment of 220 pieces of large silver bars weighing 7035.76 kgms. Valued at Rs. 3,71,53,375.00 under Bill of Entry No. 3922/97, dated 6-8-97 with duty amount of Rs. 15,39,978.00, Challan No. 39/8 each and Rs. 35,17,930.00, Challan No. 38781, 11-8-97 consignment was covered under IGM No. 573/97, dated 9-8-97 and vide AWB No. 058-3612-7055, dated 7-8-97. Special Import Licence was for Rs. 13.50 crores. It was transferred from M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., to M/s. Krishna Enterprises, Bada Chowk, Bihar, and from them to M/s. Girdhar International, Barmer and finally to appellant II. Kumar Gems. While scrutinizing the Bill .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 24-3-98. Accordingly they are accepted and debited, after seeking opinion of DGFT, New Delhi, who replied on 17-7-98, 5-8-98 and 31-8-98 that they are valid SILs and can be accepted for goods already cleared. For the seized goods, as per policy SIL can be produced at any stage before clearance. The clarification of DGFT is binding on Customs Authorities as to validity and acceptability of Licence. So the goods cannot be confiscated, and the benefit of notification will be available to the appellant H. Kumar Gems". Further in Paragraph 15 of the order at Pages 33 and 34 thereof we have held as follows : "15. The above clarification is attacked by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent as opposed to policy and Import and Export Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... partment has clarified the correct position under the policy the effect of substituting the fake licence by fresh SIL's valid at the time of shipment/despatch of goods from supplier, under the Clause G. 15 for more than one time, with the repeated question or doubt raised by Customs Department under different circumstances. The contention of Learned Senior Counsel that it is contrary to policy and import and export act is not substantiated by any particular provision there under or decided finally settled case law. But the clarification issued is thorough, well studied, supported by provision clause G. 15 of policy and the order of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, and also the direction of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad on 17-6-9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... person does or omit to do any act which such act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. When the goods are held not liable for confiscation then the provisions of Section 112 would not applicable. We also note that in this case the argument of the ld. Counsel was recorded and no finding has been made. Therefore there is an error apparent on the face on record following the precedential order in Ashwin Mehta's case supra. 8. We therefore recall our Order No. C-I/277-87/WZB/2001, dated 2-2-2001 made under Appeal No. C/39/99-Bom. and allow the appeal of the applicant appellant and set aside the Order-in-Original No. C/COMMR/ 98/APP passed by the Commissioner of Customs dt. 16-10-98, in so f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates