TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department in which the suppliers had stated the details as mentioned in the import documents do not tally with the seized goods - Once it is held that the goods have no connectivity with the goods imported at Chennai Port by the adjudicating authority there cannot be any violation of import policy and goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act - Since the goods are freely importable under Open General Licence, there is no prohibition on import of these goods - Appeal is allowed - C/422/03 - A/354/2011-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-7-2011 - SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, SHRI SAHAB SINGH, JJ. Appearance: Shri J.H. Motwani Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal SDR for Respondent Per: Sahab Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has purchased these goods from the following parties: - (i) M/s Ratnaguru Steel International (ii) M/s Ajanta Impex (iii) M/s Naman Steel The statement of Shri Suresh Sanghvi of M/s Ratnaguru Steel International and statement of Shri Deepak Desai of M/s Ajanta Impex and Shri Hemant Shah of M/s Naman Steel were also recorded in which they have claimed that they have imported the goods vide the different Bills of Entry given by them in their statements, whereas Shri Hemant Shah stated that he has purchased the goods from M/s Nirav Metals and he has not produced any import documents for the purpose of verification. On 5.2.2002, a Panchnama was drawn in both the Warehouses to ascertain the size, thickness and grade of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice can be issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai only and not by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and if the import took place at Chennai Port, the duty can also be demanded only from the real importer of Chennai and there is no authority to demand the duty from the noticees. He, further, submitted that the said goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled goods lies on the department. This is a fact that the goods in question are freely importable under Open General Licence by all persons, therefore, there cannot be any prohibition for import of the goods and goods cannot be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes that there is not doubt that the goods in question were imported goods but the appellants were not able to prove the duty paid character of the goods. Therefore, the fine, penalty and demand of duty is proper and legal under the Customs Act. 7. After hearing both sides and going through the case records, It is found that the case was initiated on the basis of intelligence that the goods imported at Chennai Port under Notification No. 30/97-Cus are being diverted to the local markets in Mumbai by the importers. The investigation has further revealed that following seven parties to whom the show-cause notices have been issued for acquiring possession/ purchasing sale of such diverted goods, pending adjudication at Chennai Customs: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r initial statements have stated about the sale of the goods to the appellant. They have also given the details of the Bills of Entry and invoices, whereas the Naman Steel has admitted that they have sold the goods after purchasing the same from M/s Nirav Metals. Thereafter the department has drawn a Panchnama dated 5.2.2002 regarding the physical inspection and measuring of width, thickness and grade of the steel. Since the physical inspection of thickness, width and grade did not tally with the seized goods, the statements of the suppliers again recorded by the department in which the suppliers had stated the details as mentioned in the import documents do not tally with the seized goods. The appellant have contended that the Panchnama da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
