9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudication proceedings arose on account of failure to meet export obligation in respect of 6 kgs. imported gold. Gold in question was imported by M/s. MMTC Ltd. supplied to the appellant M/s. Concorde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for conversion into ornaments. On account of the failure to utilize the gold for manufacture into ornament and export the same, the impugned order confiscated the 6 kgs gold absolutely (without option to redeem on payment of fine). The confiscation has been ordered for violation of the provisions of Sections 111(j) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on M/s. Concorde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a). The Commissioner desisted from imposing penalty on the Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The grievance raised in the appeal of Revenue is that the Commissioner ought to have imposed penalty not only on M/s. Concorde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. but also on its Directors namely, Smt. Kamal Sahni, Shri Ram Gopal Sahni and Shri Sanjay Sahni under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. This submission has been raised purportedly based on the decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. We read the relevant portion of the ground of appeal : "2. However, the contention of the adjudicating authority for not imposing any penalty on the three Directors does not appear to be in order. When the company as such had contravened the provisions of Customs Act and is liable for penalty and the seized gold is liable for confiscation, there is no just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under : "7. A plain reading of the above notification makes it clear that the benefit of exemption from payment of duty is not available to gold imported by M/s. MMTC Ltd. if conditions of the proviso to para 2 of the notification are not complied with. It is nobody's case that gem and jewellery units fulfilled the requirement of manufacture and export of gold and jewellery articles from the export processing zones. Therefore, duty liability definetely arises. The only argument that is canvassed before us is that the liability cannot be fastened upon M/s. MMTC as it is not the importer but only the supplier of imported gold to gem and jewellery units. We see no merit in this argument. In all the cases before us, it is M/s. MMTC that fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of M/s. MMTC and the issue applications do not refer to any other bill of entry. The Scheme provides for issue of gold by M/s. MMTC to the units only on the strength of bill of entry filed by the unit and duly assessed. M/s. MMTC had also executed bond with NEPZ Customs under the warehousing provisions of the Customs Act and had undertaken to satisfy the customs authorities that the gold imported by them will be utilised for export as per scheme of export of gold jewellery by units in the EPZ and they were also under an obligation to pay the Customs duty and penalty chargeable on such goods, together with interest." 6. We find no reason to disagree with the above view. In the present appeal also gold was imported, duty free, under ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety involved. Even the Board, while reviewing the impugned order of the Commissioner had not sought to correct this major flow in the order, but has got an appeal filed on a grossly untenable ground that Directors of the Company should also have been penalized. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has clearly reached the finding that M/s. Concorde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. had maintained proper records. At page 6 of the impugned order the Commissioner has noted as under : "I, however, notice that the company had maintained a proper record of the gold received, used and exported; and impugned 6 kgs. of gold was found intact. I, therefore, hold that for the action under 112(a) ibid, the company deserves a lenient view." Further, on the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear findings in the impugned order in favour of individual Directors. That too, when the appeal does not point out any evidence to fault the finding. It needs no reminding that the power of review under Section 129d(1) is a limited power and it can be invoked only in a case involving illegality or impropriety in the passing of an order or decision. It is not an unbridled avenue to pursue the dispute to the last forum available. Its scope can be much narrower than appeal. The glaring illegality in the adjudication proceeding of the Commissioner was that he proceeded to confiscate gold belonging to MMTC Ltd. without caring to serve a notice on them. Such a proceeding was wholly unsustainable. When this position was pointed out by M/s. Conco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
