9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty before the show cause notice and considering the same as a mitigating factor, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. As regards confiscation of the excess found goods, the appellant have not contested their liability to confiscation. Accordingly, we uphold the same. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. As regards confiscation of the declared quantity of fabrics, we take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ashoka Traders v. Collector of Customs [ 1988 (7) TMI 287 - CEGAT, BOMBAY] . The facts in the above decision are parallel to the facts in the present case. Thus, we uphold the confiscation of the declared quantity under the provisions of Section 119 of the Act, but reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakhs. Personal penalties on Shri Ratan Goel, it is seen that he was the person actively involved in importation of the excess quantity and was a ware of the said fact. He has also deposed in his statement that he was aware of the fact that it is an offence under the Customs Act. Thus, we are of the view that a separate penalty on Shri Ratan Goel should be upheld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Santraj Singh Megaj Singh Tanwar authorized signatory under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2.We have heard both sides, duly represented by Shri Mayur Shroff ld. Advocate and Shri Sanjay Singhal ld. JDR. 3.As per the facts on record M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. is a 100% EOU and is engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments. Polyester fabrics, which is the major raw material, is allowed to be imported by the appellant without payment of Customs duty and for the purpose of use in the manufacture of the garments to be ultimately exported, in terms of the provisions of the Notification No. 53/97. In respect of the present import consignment, the appellants declared quantity of polyester fabrics in the Bill of Entry. However, on verification quantity of 83,868 L Mtrs., was found to be in excess than the declared quantity. Authorized representative of the appellant accepted the above excess quantity but deposed that he was not aware of the excess quantity in the container and only Managing Director can explain. The statement of the Managing Director Shri Ratan Kumar Goel, was recorded on 22-8-2001 and subsequently, who accepted and admitted the fact of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulting in misuse of the benefit available to 100% EOU. They have referred to the following decision where Larger Bench was not followed by the Tribunal in case of mis-declarations that : (i) Pee Aar Steels P. Ltd v. CCE [2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All) = 2004 (93) ECC 633 (ALL)] (ii) Siva Hygenic Products P. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (186) E.L.T. 178(T) = 2005 (68) RLT 771 (T)] (iii) Rolcon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (178) E.L.T. 687 (T)] (iv) CCE v. S.P. Tobacco P. Ltd. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 136(T) = 2005 (98) ECC 707 (T)] (v) Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 217 (T)] (vi) CCE v. Deepak Spinners [2005 (179) E.L.T. 93 (T)] (vii) Brakes India Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (184) E.L.T. 179 (T)] (viii) Jasch Ind Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (184) E.L.T. 190 (T)] 8.As regards confiscation of the declared quantity of the goods, they have submitted that the said quantity was used for concealing the excess goods found in the containers and thus has been rightly confiscated under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance has been placed upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ashoka Traders v. Collector of Customs [1989 (41) E.L.T. 134 (Tribunal)]. 9.After giving our careful consideration to the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the penalty from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. 10.As regards confiscation of the excess found goods, the appellant have not contested their liability to confiscation. Accordingly, we uphold the same. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. As regards confiscation of the declared quantity of fabrics, we take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ashoka Traders v. Collector of Customs [1989 (41) E.L.T. 134 (Tribunal)]. In Para 9 of their judgment the liability to confiscation under Section 119 has been discussed. For better appreciation we reproduce below the said para. "The next issue to be considered is whether Section 119 could be invoked in the case of 41 bales wrapped in black wrapper in respect of which the goods imported are as per description in the documents. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary 'conceal' means to hide completely or carefully — to keep secret — to disguise — to keep from telling. Under Section 119 of the Customs Act the object used for concealing is liable for confiscation. In a case like this where 2 identical lots one without contraband and another with contrab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
