9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared in the customs clearance documents and there was large evasion of duty. At the time of seizure, the value of the consignment was estimated at Rs. 3.60 crores. It was found that the bulk of the consignment was of Japanese origin, even though they had been declared to customs at the time of clearance as of Chinese/Russian origin. During the investigation, Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Meerut Exim. admitted to misdeclaration and under-valuation of the goods. He also deposited an amount of Rs. 85,73,179/- towards duty evaded. Consequently, show cause notice dated 15-1-2001 was issued proposing to confiscate the goods in question, demand short-levied duty on the two consignments and to impose penalties on many persons alleged to be involved in the offence. The proceedings so initiated was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut by passing the order impugned in these appeals. Briefly stated, the Commissioner rejected the values declared on both the Bills of Entries and refixed the values. A value of about Rs. 91 Lakh was fixed in respect of the first consignment cleared under Bill of Entry No. 00023, dated 5-6-2000. For the second consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order confiscation of bearings under Sections 111(m) (l) ibid, valued at Rs. 69,58,578.00 (C.I.F.) imported under Bill of Entry No. 00023, dated 5-6-2000. However, since the above goods are not physically available for confiscation. I impose a fine of Rs. 50,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty lacs only) on M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut in lieu of confiscation, as proposed in para 29.2(iii) of show cause notice. (vii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,75,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lacs only) on M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut and Rs. 1,75,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lacs only) on Shri A.K. Jain, Prop. M/s. Meerut Exim, under Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees one crore only) on Shri Balbir Singh Sethi, authorised signatory of M/s. Meerut Exim, under Section 112(a) (b) ibid. Rs. 1,50,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore fifty lacs only) on Shri Trilok Nath Mittal under Section 112(b) ibid, and Rs. 1,50,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore fifty lacs only) on Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as proposed in para 29.2(iv) of SCN. (viii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,18,17,739.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that the appellant had incurred huge loss on account of prolonged detention of the goods. He also pointed out that the prices of ball bearings have come down with the reduction of customs duties during the pendency of the adjudication and appellate proceedings. 5. As against the above submissions on behalf of the appellant, ld. SDR has pointed out that this case was a serious fraud committed on the Revenue with the assistance of Customs Officers themselves. The value, particulars and quantity of the goods had been misdecleared to evade a large amount of customs duty. Investigations have clearly brought out that it was a well planned and executed fraud. He, therefore, submitted that exemplanary penalties and redemption fine were called for. As regards the submissions that only goods which are physically available, can be confiscated, ld. SDR has contended that this is not the correct legal position. On this issue, he has relied, in particular, on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Chandrakant Seth v. CC [1993 (68) E.L.T. 289 (Cal.)]. He has also pointed out that stiff penalties were called for in the present case particularly on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain, Proprie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, we are of the opinion that imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 Crore on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, penalty in regard to the two imports are fixed at Rs. 1 Crore on Shri Jain. All other penalties, imposed on M/s. Meerut Exim and Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain are set aside and the impugned order modified to this extent. The deposits already made during investigations or in terms of Interim Order of this Tribunal shall be adjusted in the duty demand, fine and penalty as fixed above and the appellant shall pay the remaining amount immediately. Appeal No. C/79/2002-A, Shri Balbir Singh Sethi 8. There is a penalty of Rs. 1 Crore on the appellant, Shri Balbir Singh. The finding of the Commissioner with regard to the appellant may be noted. The adjudication order states the following :- "As regard the role of Shri Balbir Singh Sethi, I observe that he is brother-in-law of Shri A.K. Jain and authorised signatory of M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, the firm on whose account the import was made. The role of Shri Sethi was to get the goods cleared from I.C.D., Meerut which he, admittedly did. The offending goods were got cleared by Shri Sethi from I.C.D., Mee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
