9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the Import and Export Passbook Scheme. Investigation by the department led it to conclude that the goods had not been used in the manufacture of carpets, as required in terms of the import licence and the exemption notification, but sold. This led to the issue of notice to Geeta carpets and others, alleging that the imported goods had been sold after their clearance in Mumbai and proposing recovery of duty on the goods from the importer, and penalty on the importer. Penalties were also proposed on Rank Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., T. Chopra, Shashikant Shah and others for their alleged role in the illegal sale of the goods. The Commissioner passed orders confirming the demand for duty from the importer, imposing penalties on it. T. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kant Shah, was representing the importer. If the importer had given an authority to appoint a Custom House Agent, the instructions that Shah had given for disposal of the goods could be on behalf of the importer. This is the only material found against the appellant. There is no allegation that the appellant knew, or had reason to belief that the goods were to be sold in the market. As the counsel for this appellant points out, it has to follow the directions of the importer with regard to the delivery of the goods, if the importer either directly or through an intermediary recognised by both, required it to delivery the goods at a particular warehouse, there was nothing unlawful in the Custom House Agent complying with the requirement. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The allegation against Shashikant Shah is that he actually arranged the sale of the goods. This again is established by the Commissioner, relying on fact that the goods were delivered at his instance on the admission made by Shashikant Shah in this regard. They were therefore rightly liable to penalty. However, we note that, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Chopra who facilitate the sale of the goods, whereas he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shashikant Shah who actually carried out the sale. The Commissioner appears to have been influenced by the fact Chopra did not display sufficient contrition for his activities relating to liaison on the licensing authority which the Commissioner finds reprehensible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
