TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that the import was by that appellant. Part of the goods (23 container load) had been consigned to M/s. Suren International Limited and had reached ICD, Tuglakabad, though they were seized by Customs authorities before any Bill of Entries were filed. The remaining goods were seized from two trucks loaded with those goods and from the godown at Ganga Nursery in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The impugned order has reached a finding that they had also been illegally imported. The second appellant M/s. Gaurav Exim Pvt. Ltd. claims those goods and contends that they had been purchased from two Delhi parties. The remaining appeals are against imposition of penalties on the appellant individuals. 3. We may first recall the material facts briefly, even through details have to be left to a perusal of the Adjudication order. M/s. Suren International Limited, Vasant Kunj, New delhi had been importing aluminium scrap through ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. In July 2001, it filed six Bills of Entries for the clearance of 17 containers, while 23 more containers had arrived in its name. Even as those Bills were pending assessment, on the basis of specific information received on or around 31-7-01 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y did not cooperate with the investigation; but ultimately, pursuant to Court orders, they appeared before the authorities and rendered their statements. While Mrs. Renu Mahant admitted that she was the Director of M/s. Suren International Limited even though she disowned responsibility for the excess import, Shri Harish Kumar maintained that he was an IPS Officer and had no involvement with the business of M/s. Suren International Limited, distancing and disowning responsibility for the smuggled goods is the position taken by them. Explanation was also offered that the goods had been wrongly supplied. Supplier also filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed. M/s. Suren International Limited also filed application before the Settlement Commission seeking a settlement of the disputes without going into adjudication proceedings. 5. Evidence involves considerable records, statements of many parties and inquiry reports of investigating agencies like Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), CBI, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Banks and other authorities. What emerged in the investigation was that though the imports were carried out in the name of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 4. Shri Balwan Sharma - Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 5. Shri Vikaram singh - Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only ) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 6. Shri V.K. Khanna - Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 7. Shri J.R. Sharma - Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 8. Dr. Hans Nagar - Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 9. M/s. Gaurav Exim Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees. Fifty thousand only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 10. Shri Ashok Kumar Sirpaul - Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 11. Shri Rajesh Gadia - Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only ) under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 12. Shri Hemant Khera - Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act. 7. The above orders follow the finding that the entire seized goods had been illegally imported and that "Shri Harish Kumar was the master mind in the entire busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord clearly brings out that these goods were not procured in India as claimed by M/s. Gaurav Exim. The recovery and seizure of the goods was pursuant to information about storage of these goods by M/s. Suren International Limited, the drivers of the trucks and the persons at Ganga Nursery had all stated that the goods were received from M/s. Suren International Limited, these goods are also similar goods as sought to be smuggled in the containers imported by M/s. Suren. International Limited, each aspect of M/s. Gaurav Exim's claimed transaction with the two alleged suppliers of Delhi and their purchase from Bombay remains exposed as false. In these facts and circumstances, the Commissioner's finding that these goods were also illegally imported is fully justified. 10. During the investigation and adjudication proceedings the appellant M/s. Suren International Limited and their suppliers had also put up a defence that discrepancy in the goods is the result of wrong supply, and that the goods were not intended for M/s. Suren International Limited. Reliance was also placed on some purported fax and other correspondence between the parties. The Commissioner rejected this explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slips or at other places like "Please check and fax back", "We have to keep it below 2.5", I have confirmed TT for US 5000 from Canada for your account in Tatlee Bank"," talk to them how it works to reduce our demurrages JRS". These and other hand written notes were sent during investigation to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The CFSL has confirmed that the hand writing in those slips and other places in the seized papers is the same as the writing admitted to be of Shri Harish Kumar. Apart from such instructions of Shri Harish Kumar in the files of M/s. Suren International Limited is the fact that parties writing to the M/s. Suren International Limited were marking those communications as "Kind attention to Mr. Harish Mahant"etc. It is of particular significance that in relation to one of the consignments under seizure, the invoice mentions "in case of need, please contact Sh. Harish Sharma contract No. 6899840". There is no dispute raised that Shri Harish Kumar is the person referred to. We are not reproducing or dealing with each of these entries. Suffice it to note, the impugned order had dealt with the evidence in detail at paras 31 and 32 and other paras. The entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
