|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 567 Records
-
2001 (10) TMI 956
The appeal by M/s. Vijay Laxmi Transport against a penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal found that the appellants had no knowledge that the goods were of foreign origin or smuggled, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise. The impugned order imposing the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 955
The case involved the question of whether Cess was leviable on parts and accessories of automobiles during a specific period. The Tribunal found that the demand for Cess from 1-12-90 to 25-5-94 was barred by limitation as the Revenue had approved Classification Lists showing non-payment of Cess on parts and accessories, indicating a lack of intention to evade duty. The impugned order on limitation was set aside.
-
2001 (10) TMI 953
Issues:
Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on two appellants based on the same impugned Order of the Commissioner of Customs.
Analysis:
The judgment involves the imposition of personal penalties on two appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case originated when Shri Khirod Mohan Sarkar was apprehended with a significant amount of Indian currency, claiming it was received in exchange for gold from a person named Sadhan. Investigations revealed discrepancies in identities and connections, leading to the issuance of show cause notices. The appellant, Shyamal Mazumdar, denied involvement and argued lack of evidence linking him to the transactions. Despite this, the adjudicating authority imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on each appellant.
In the appeal, Shyamal Mazumdar's representative contended that the penalty was unjust as the evidence provided by Shri Khirod Mohan Sarkar was unreliable, emphasizing the lack of proof connecting Shyamal Mazumdar to the illicit activities. The representative cited the absence of efforts by the Revenue to establish the identity of Sadhan and highlighted contradictions in statements. Additionally, the representative referenced legal precedents to support the argument against the penalty's validity.
Upon review, the judge noted discrepancies in the impugned Order, particularly the ambiguity surrounding the identity of the appellant Shyamal Mazumdar, referred to as 'S. Mazumdar' without clarification. The judge criticized the reliance on the sole statement of Shri Khirod Mohan Sarkar, an unreliable co-accused, as the basis for imposing the penalty on Shyamal Mazumdar. Consequently, the judge found the penalty unsustainable and ruled in favor of Shyamal Mazumdar, setting aside the penalty imposed on him.
Regarding the second appellant, Sankar Paul, the judge observed that the penalty was solely based on the statement of Shri Khirod Mohan Sarkar, lacking independent corroboration. As a result, the judge extended the benefit of the doubt to Sankar Paul and overturned the penalty imposed on him. Ultimately, both appeals were allowed, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants, thereby resolving the issue of personal penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 in their favor.
-
2001 (10) TMI 952
Issues:
Confiscation of truck, redemption fine, imposition of personal penalty.
Confiscation of Truck:
The appellant, a driver-cum-owner of a truck, had his vehicle intercepted by Police Authorities, leading to the discovery of contraband goods. Investigation revealed discrepancies in the truck's registration, with the original number plate changed. The appellant claimed the truck was taken by an unknown person, and he had knowledge of the illegal goods loaded. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, considering the appellant's guilty knowledge and involvement in using the truck for illegal activities.
Redemption Fine:
The appellant was aggrieved by the redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed for the confiscated truck. The Tribunal, while affirming the confiscation, reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 65,000, citing the circumstances of the case. The decision to lower the redemption fine was based on the facts presented during the investigation and the appellant's involvement in the transportation of contraband goods.
Imposition of Personal Penalty:
In addition to the confiscation of the truck, a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal deemed this penalty reasonable, considering the appellant's actions, including speeding away when signaled to stop by authorities, and the discrepancies in the truck's registration documents. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the imposed personal penalty, concluding that it was justified based on the appellant's involvement in the illegal transportation of goods.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the confiscation of the truck and the imposition of the personal penalty. However, a modification was made to reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 65,000. The decision was based on the appellant's involvement in the transportation of contraband goods and his actions during the interception by authorities.
-
2001 (10) TMI 951
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner regarding processed pulses for export. The export was not prohibited, but was considered unauthorized due to not fulfilling a condition of the license. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant.
-
2001 (10) TMI 950
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered eligibility for abatement under Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules. The appellant's claim was denied due to missing particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence to support the claim and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider electricity bills as evidence within two months. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
2001 (10) TMI 949
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, who utilized Modvat credit for duty paid on inputs. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit was not valid as the products cleared to the 100% export oriented unit were final products, not intermediate. The impugned order was set aside.
-
2001 (10) TMI 948
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding the import of activated bleaching earth under an advance license. The Tribunal held that the license covered the import of activated bleaching earth, based on technical literature and policy amendments. The impugned order for duty recovery was set aside. (Case citation: 2001 (10) TMI 948 - CEGAT, Mumbai)
-
2001 (10) TMI 947
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of Modvat credit for irregular invoices issued by M/s. Maize Products. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation supported by certificates and overturned the original adjudication, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief.
-
2001 (10) TMI 946
Issues:
1. Failure to furnish proof of export leading to duty demand.
2. Allegation of handling loss on Ferro Alloys.
3. Application of Ministry's letter condoning handling losses.
4. Extending condonation to other units for uniformity.
Issue 1: Failure to furnish proof of export leading to duty demand
The case involved the removal of 6714.8 MT of Ferro Alloys for export under bond, with an allegation of failure to provide proof of export for 45.892 MT, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 1,21,275. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand against the respondents. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, prompting the Revenue to file the present appeal.
Issue 2: Allegation of handling loss on Ferro Alloys
During the appeal, the respondents attributed the shortages to handling loss due to the brittle nature of Ferro Alloys. They argued that the Ministry had allowed a handling loss of one percent for Ferro Alloys, while their case only showed a loss of 0.68%. They contended that there was no negligence on their part and no evidence of diversion for home consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted these contentions and overturned the Assistant Commissioner's order.
Issue 3: Application of Ministry's letter condoning handling losses
The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a letter from the Ministry dated February 12, 1987, which condoned losses up to one percent for Charge Chrome clearances. The Revenue argued that this condonation applied only to a specific manufacturer and could not be extended to the respondents. However, the Tribunal found merit in the argument that such directions by the Board should be uniformly followed, as seen in a previous case. As the losses in the present case were below 1%, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to apply the norms set in the Ministry's letter.
Issue 4: Extending condonation to other units for uniformity
The main contention in the appeal was whether the Ministry's letter condoning losses up to one percent should be restricted to a specific manufacturer or extended to other units for uniformity. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the same product was involved in both cases, and therefore, there was no justification to limit the scope of the letter only to one manufacturer. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the stay petition accordingly.
-
2001 (10) TMI 945
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled that the sale of projection television sets at a lower price to a specific organization did not qualify as a deemed export. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the respondent, but the Tribunal overturned this decision, confirming the duty allegedly short-paid.
-
2001 (10) TMI 940
Issues Involved:
1. Whether clearances under Rule 191BB amount to clearance of exempted goods.
2. Whether duty can be demanded on the intermediate product, i.e., Nylon yarn, used to make Nylon Tyre Cord fabrics cleared under Rule 191BB.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether clearances under Rule 191BB amount to clearance of exempted goods:
The appellant argued that clearances under Rule 191BB do not amount to clearance of exempted goods. They cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of Orissa Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, which held that clearance under Rule 191BB does not constitute clearance of exempted goods. The Tribunal referenced a circular issued by the CBEC, stating that exempted goods refer to those cleared under an exemption Notification issued under Rule 8 (now Section 5A), and that Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.) is not an exemption notification.
The Tribunal concluded that the scope of Rule 57C does not extend to cases of removal of goods without payment of duty under a Notification issued under Rule 191BB. This interpretation aligns with the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, which clarified that goods exported in bond cannot be treated as exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to a nil rate of duty. The Tribunal further noted that the Ministry of Finance's circular supports this view, emphasizing that removals under a Notification not being an exemption Notification do not equate to exemption from the whole of duty or chargeability to nil rate of duty.
2. Whether duty can be demanded on the intermediate product, i.e., Nylon yarn, used to make Nylon Tyre Cord fabrics cleared under Rule 191BB:
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras, demanded duty on the Nylon yarn used in the manufacture of Nylon Tyre Cord fabrics, arguing that the intermediate goods (Nylon yarn) were not exempted from payment of duty either under the Notification for captive consumption or any other provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants contended that the clearance of Nylon Tyre Cord fabrics to M/s. MRF Limited under Rule 191BB, which were subsequently exported, should not attract duty on the intermediate product (Nylon yarn).
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that no duty can be demanded on the intermediate product (Nylon yarn) used to manufacture Nylon Tyre Cord fabrics cleared under Rule 191BB. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedure prescribed by the Government of India under Rule 191BB aims to facilitate and encourage export without payment of duty, avoiding unnecessary paperwork. The Tribunal referenced its previous judgment in the appellant's own case, where it was held that since the finished product is not exempted from payment of duty by virtue of Notification No. 30 issued under Rule 5A(1), Modvat credit cannot be denied under Rule 57C for clearances made under Rule 191B/191BB.
The Tribunal concluded that the learned Commissioner misdirected himself in demanding duty on the intermediate product (Nylon yarn) and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2001 (10) TMI 939
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi overturned the order denying Modvat Credit due to invoices from unregistered dealers. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants citing a circular extending the registration deadline for dealers, allowing credit for invoices issued by previously unregistered dealers who registered before the deadline. The appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 937
Issues Involved:
1. Differential duty short paid on CRSS cleared on stock transfer basis.
2. Duty not paid on blades not accounted for in statutory records.
3. Duty not paid on blades used for testing purposes.
4. Duty on quantities reported stolen.
5. Irregular credit availed on fake invoices.
6. Penalty equivalent to duty demanded.
7. Penalty for irregular credit availed.
8. Interest on demanded amounts.
9. Penalty for contravention of Central Excise Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Differential Duty Short Paid on CRSS Cleared on Stock Transfer Basis:
The appellants challenged the demand of Rs. 97,25,682/- for differential duty on CRSS strips cleared on a stock transfer basis. They argued that the valuation should be based on the selling price of Vidyut Metallics Ltd. as per Notification No. 27/92 and the Apex Court's ruling in Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not consider the second Cost Accountant's report and misapplied the valuation rules. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
2. Duty Not Paid on Blades Not Accounted for in Statutory Records:
The appellants contested the demand of Rs. 50,32,212/- for duty on blades allegedly removed without payment of duty. They argued that the valuation should be based on the manufacturer's selling price, not the job worker's. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not wait for the second Cost Accountant's report and remanded the matter for re-evaluation.
3. Duty Not Paid on Blades Used for Testing Purposes:
The appellants disputed the demand of Rs. 3,72,209/- for duty on blades used for testing. They argued that the valuation should consider the manufacturer's selling price. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
4. Duty on Quantities Reported Stolen:
The appellants challenged the demand of Rs. 3,141/- for duty on stolen quantities. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not properly consider the appellants' arguments and remanded the matter for re-evaluation.
5. Irregular Credit Availed on Fake Invoices:
The appellants contested the demand of Rs. 1,71,083/- for irregular credit availed on fake invoices. They argued that the Commissioner did not consider the second Cost Accountant's report. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
6. Penalty Equivalent to Duty Demanded:
The appellants challenged the penalties imposed under Sec. 11A of the CEA, 1944. They argued that the penalties were not justified as the valuation was incorrect. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
7. Penalty for Irregular Credit Availed:
The appellants contested the penalties imposed under Rule 57-I(4) of the CE Rules, 1944. They argued that the penalties were not justified as the valuation was incorrect. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
8. Interest on Demanded Amounts:
The appellants challenged the interest on the demanded amounts under Sec. 11AB of the CEA, 1944. They argued that the interest was not justified as the valuation was incorrect. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
9. Penalty for Contravention of Central Excise Rules:
The appellants contested the penalties imposed under Rules 9(2), 52A(8), and 173Q of the CE Rules, 1944. They argued that the penalties were not justified as the valuation was incorrect. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the correct valuation principles.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery, remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, for de novo consideration. The Commissioner was directed to re-evaluate the case in light of the second Cost Accountant's report and relevant judgments, ensuring a proper application of valuation principles and providing full opportunity for the appellants to present their case.
-
2001 (10) TMI 936
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalty.
2. Exclusion of the value of exported goods from the duty calculation.
3. Imposition of penalty for clearing goods without payment of duty.
Issue 1: Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalty:
The appeal was filed against the Adjudication Order confirming a demand of Central Excise duty and imposing a penalty. Initially, a higher duty amount was confirmed against the Appellants, but they argued that the value of exported goods should be excluded from the duty calculation. The Tribunal remanded the matter for further evidence on exports. The Appellants submitted various documents as evidence, but the Commissioner confirmed a lower duty amount than claimed by the Appellants. The Appellants decided not to contest the duty amount but argued against the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal upheld the duty amount confirmed by the Commissioner but reduced the penalty to a nominal sum of Rs. 5000, considering the Appellants' belief that no duty was payable on sterilized sutures received from jobbers.
Issue 2: Exclusion of the value of exported goods from the duty calculation:
The Appellants contended that the duty should be lower as the value of exported goods should be excluded from the duty calculation. They provided evidence such as shipping bills, invoices, packing lists, and bank certificates to support their claim. The Tribunal acknowledged the evidence submitted and the belief held by the Appellants that no duty was payable on sterilized sutures received from jobbers. The Tribunal upheld the duty amount confirmed by the Commissioner but considered the issue of interpretation of law regarding who was the actual manufacturer in the case. Ultimately, a nominal penalty of Rs. 5000 was imposed, and the appeal was disposed of with a possible refund of excess amount already deposited by the Appellants.
Issue 3: Imposition of penalty for clearing goods without payment of duty:
The Respondent argued that since some quantity of sterilized sutures were cleared without payment of duty, a penalty should be imposed. However, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' argument that they believed no duty was payable on the sterilized sutures received from jobbers. The Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 5000, considering the circumstances and the interpretation of law regarding the manufacturing process. The Appellants were eligible for a refund of the excess amount deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was disposed of with the reduced penalty and possible consequential relief for the Appellants.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, highlights the issues of duty confirmation, penalty imposition, exclusion of exported goods from duty calculation, and the imposition of penalty for clearing goods without payment of duty. The Tribunal considered the evidence submitted by the Appellants, their belief regarding duty payment on sterilized sutures, and the interpretation of law to arrive at a decision reducing the penalty and upholding the duty amount confirmed by the Commissioner.
-
2001 (10) TMI 935
The Revenue appealed against a decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Modvat credit for welding rods, weighing machines, and Mobil oil. The lower appellate authority's decision was upheld based on previous Tribunal decisions. The appeal was rejected as the challenge against the lower appellate authority's decision was not valid.
-
2001 (10) TMI 931
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims as barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for refund claims under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Appeal against the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
4. Consideration of a letter as a refund claim by the appellant.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the rejection of refund claims amounting to Rs. 19,695 and Rs. 27,242 as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's final product, initially rejected by the customer, was reprocessed and reconditioned before being cleared on 17-3-98. However, the refund claim was filed on 17-7-98, beyond the six-month limitation period. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim based on the date of entry of returned goods in the factory, leading to the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on time limit grounds but remanded the issue of fund transfer, emphasizing the need for sanction before transfer.
2. The Commissioner's interpretation of the relevant date under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was crucial in this case. The appellant argued that a letter dated 20-8-96 should be considered as a refund claim. However, the contents of the letter indicated a request for permission to clear goods beyond the six-month period, not a direct refund claim. The letter expressed the appellant's intention to file a formal refund application shortly, which was eventually done on 17-7-98. The judgment clarified that the relevant date for goods returned for reprocessing is the date of entry into the factory, as per Section 11B explanation (B), making the refund claim filed beyond this period time-barred.
3. The appeal against the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund highlighted the procedural aspect of fund transfer in the absence of sanction. The Commissioner's decision to remand this issue due to the lack of sanction for the amounts indicated a procedural irregularity in transferring the funds before approval. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proper sanction before transferring amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund, indicating a procedural flaw in the initial decision.
4. The consideration of the letter dated 20-8-96 as a refund claim by the appellant was a key contention. The judgment clarified that the letter did not explicitly stake a refund claim but rather sought permission to clear goods beyond the time limit. The appellant's intention to file a formal refund application was evident from the letter, indicating a future claim. The distinction between a request for permission and a formal refund claim was crucial in determining the rejection of the letter as a valid refund application, reinforcing the time-barred nature of the subsequent claim filed on 17-7-98.
-
2001 (10) TMI 930
Issues Involved:
1. Duty demand under Rule 9(2) of C.E. Rules read with proviso to Section 11A and penalties under Rules 9(2), 173Q, and 209A of C.E. Rules.
2. Allegations of suppression, clearances without payment of duty, and maintaining records.
3. Classification of items under sub-heading No. 8421.00 of CET.
4. Disagreement on appellant's contentions regarding approved classification and exemption under notification No. 93/90-C.E.
5. Department's invocation of a larger period for investigation.
6. Dispute over the nature of the manufactured items - structures or parts of an electrostatic precipitator.
7. Legal arguments based on approved classification, expert opinions, and judgments cited.
Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand and penalties imposed by the Collector of Central Excise. The appellants were accused of manufacturing MS ducts and duct supports for Cement Corporation of India without paying duty. The department alleged suppression and incorrect classification under sub-heading 8421.00, contrary to the appellant's claim of exemption under a specific notification.
2. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, rejected the appellant's contentions despite an approved classification list. The Commissioner argued that the items were designed for parts of an electrostatic precipitator, falling under a different sub-heading. The Commissioner allowed the release of goods on payment of a fine but upheld the duty demand and penalties.
3. The appellant's counsel argued against the department's actions, citing judgments that disapproved changing classifications without proper notice. The counsel emphasized that all necessary details were provided in the classification list, and the department had approved it after due verification.
4. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions. It noted that the appellant had followed due process, obtained necessary licenses, and provided detailed information for classification. The Tribunal agreed that the demands were not sustainable as there was an approved classification in place, and the department failed to produce evidence supporting the new classification.
5. Regarding the invocation of a larger period for investigation, the Tribunal found that the appellant had disclosed all relevant details, and the department had verified the manufacturing process. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim that the demands were time-barred and that the items were structures exempted under the relevant notification.
6. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of technical evidence from the department to prove that the items were part of an electrostatic precipitator. As a result, the Tribunal sided with the appellant's contentions, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of due process, approved classifications, and the burden of proof on the department to substantiate allegations of duty evasion and incorrect classification.
-
2001 (10) TMI 929
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding the classification of poles for electric transmission. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions and unsettled law on the issue, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and directing a disposal of the appeal without requiring any deposit.
-
2001 (10) TMI 928
Issues involved:
Classification of parts/components of Harvester Combine under Heading 84.33 or sub-heading No. 8483, availability of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., correct valuation of parts, availability of Modvat credit, and imposition of penalty.
Classification Issue Analysis:
The appellant claimed that parts used in the Harvester Combine should be classified under Heading 84.33, citing suitability for use with the machine. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision regarding classification of parts of an I.C. Engine. However, the respondent argued that parts should be classified under Heading 84.83 as per the Tariff rules. The Tribunal noted that some parts were specifically included in Heading 84.83 and should be classified accordingly, despite their use with the Harvester Combine. The Commissioner was directed to reclassify all parts based on this guidance.
Valuation Issue Analysis:
Regarding valuation, the appellant contended that the value should not be based on spare market prices but determined using the cost construction method. The Tribunal agreed, referencing a case involving engines sold as spares. The assessable value of parts used in the Harvester Combine should be redetermined following this method. Modvat credit eligibility was confirmed, subject to furnishing duty paying documents to the Central Excise Authority.
Penalty Issue Analysis:
The issue of penalty imposition was raised by the respondent due to mis-declaration of goods' classification. The Tribunal left this decision to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration during the fresh adjudication process. The appellant's argument that penalty should not be imposed based on the interpretation of the tariff as a legal question was noted.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reclassify parts based on the Tariff rules, redetermine the valuation following the cost construction method, and allow Modvat credit upon submission of relevant documents. The question of penalty imposition was deferred for reconsideration during the fresh adjudication process.
............
|
9911796707
