TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Company by their Custom House Agent, D. Ramesh working in the name and style of "Farport International". In the relevant show cause notice issued to the importer, CHA and others, it was mainly alleged that the duty payment endorsements made on the relevant Bills of Entry (for home consumption) prior to clearance of the goods were forged. The duty on the goods as assessed in the Bills of Entry had not actually been paid and therefore, it was alleged, the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act. In this connection, it was also alleged that penalties were liable to be imposed on the importer and the CHA. A penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act was also proposed against the appellant, brother of the CH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (j) of Section 111 does not get attracted in this case and consequently Section 112(b) is also not applicable. 4. Ld. JDR submits that, admittedly, no duty on the goods was paid or collected and therefore the clearance of the goods cannot be considered to have been made in terms of the permission endorsed on the relevant Bills of Entry by the proper officer of Customs. DR enumerates four stages at customs in relation to imported goods follows : (i) Filing of Bill of Entry (ii) Assessment (iii) Payment of the duty assessed (iv) Clearance of the goods. In this case, the third stage was not passed through as there was no payment of duty. Hence the goods could not legitimately reach the clearance stage. The permis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged. Later on, in the course of investigation, it turned out that those endorsements were forged and that there was no actual payment of duty. This forgery, which is not in dispute, rendered the clearance of the goods illegal inasmuch as law did not permit the goods to be cleared for home consumption without payment of duty, there being no exemption from payment of such duty. The permission for clearance, granted by the proper officer, was subject to payment of duty. As there was no payment of duty, there was no valid permission either. In the result, the clearance of the goods was unauthorised and illegal and this very fact rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The confiscation order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [AIR 1955 SC 504]. The Court held thus :- "the true scope of the rule of 'ejusdem generis' is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified and not its reverse, that specific words which precede are controlled by the general words which follow." According to the above doctrine, the meaning of the expression "in any other manner of dealing with" should be understood in a sense similar or comparable to how the preceding words viz. carrying, removing, depositing etc. are understood. In other words, "any other manner of dealing" with the goods is also some physical manner of dealing with the goods. In the impugned order, there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
