Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (4) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with contents declared to be "210 cartons electronic components" was consigned to the appellants herein and the same arrived at the Inland Container Depot, Bangalore on 31-12-1985. The appellant did not file any Bill of Entry to clear the goods imported for home consumption or for warehousing. On 3-6-1986, the Customs authorities issued a notice to the appellant under Section 48 of the Act calling upon the appellant to file the necessary Bill of Entry and clear the goods as per law within seven days from the date of the said letter on pain of disposal of the same in public auction. The appellants by their letter, dated 11-6-1986 sought time upto 18-6-1986 to file the necessary Bill of Entry as per law for clearance of the said goods. No Bi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Kiran Javali, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been fastened with a penal liability purely on surmises and conjectures by the Collector of Customs when there is no acceptable legal evidence on record warranting a conclusion that the appellant was in any way privy to the illegal act of importing the goods in question. The learned counsel urged that reference had been made more than once to Eiko Computers by the adjudicating authority under the impugned order but no particulars about the import of the said Eiko Computers were set out in the show cause notice with the result the appellant has suffered prejudice and consequently the impugned order is vitiated. It was further urged that when the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises for our consideration in the above case is whether the appellant who has been visited with a penalty under the impugned order was in any way concerned or privy to the act of importation of the prohibited goods concerned in the case. Certain circumstances which have been clearly set out in the impugned order by the Collector are clinching and conclusive to bring home the charge against the appellant. As very pertinently pointed out by the Collector under the impugned order the component parts ordered for by the appellant are for 174 pieces of monitors and 920 sets of Sinclair Spectrum P.C. and it is indeed a very strange coincidence that one party in S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ension of time from the authorities till 18-6-1986 to file the Bill of Entry for clearing the goods for home consumption. To a specific question in this regard the learned counsel merely stated that presumably a communication must have been sent from the appellant's office without the appellant being aware of the same. Further the fact remains that the appellant came forward with a disclaimer relinquishing the goods for the first time by his communication, dated 13-8-1986 and this fact is admitted before us by the learned counsel. It passes our comprehension as to why the appellant did not relinquish the goods in the month of May 1986 itself if he had not placed orders for the goods in question and that the goods were missent. The conduct o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... "System Aids - Bangalore". The plea of the learned counsel that the impugned order is on the basis of surmises and conjectures is without any basis. Though some reference has been made to similar instances of import by one Eiko Computers that has not been taken by the adjudicating authority as a basis for giving a finding against the appellant and so non-submission of particulars regarding similar imports by M/s. Eiko Computers cannot be said to have prejudiced the appellant in any way. We make it clear that we totally disabuse our mind of the reference to Eiko Computers and the import alleged to have been made by them in reaching a conclusion we have reached against the appellant. The plea of the learned counsel that the impugned order wo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates