TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants have not fulfilled the Export Obligations in terms of conditions of the said Advance Licences and in violation of the conditions of the Customs Notification No. 204/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. The appellants have admitted that the Export Obligations could not be fulfilled by them and as such, the duty confirmed by the Commissioner is justified. They are not disputing the same. However, they are disputing the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh by the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that because of the circumstances beyond their control, the Export Obligations could not be fulfilled, for which the penalty should not be imposed upon them. 2. Shri Tapan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dged an FIR with the Police Authorities at Calcutta. From the above narration of facts, learned Advocates submit that it was not the appellants who were at fault. On the contrary, they had become the victim of circumstances and had to pay duty on the imported items, though they had not gained from the same. Relying upon certain judgments, they submit that there were no mala fides on the part of the appellants and the penalty imposed was not justified. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, submits that the case has been initiated against the appellants on a specific information that they were indulging in the importation of raw silk against Advance Licences and diverting the same to Home Mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of their job workers, they had to suffer. However, it is seen that as rightly pointed out by the learned S.D.R. that all the actions taken against their job workers, were after the start of the investigations against them. As such, the said action was taken by them does not prove their bona fides. In any case, it is the responsibility of the importers to fulfil their Export Obligations. In having not done that the process of law was abused. The period to fulfil the Export Obligations had expired in December, 1997 and the appellants have not shown anything on record to reflect that they had taken action to fulfil their obligation prior to the said date or even immediately, thereafter. Learned Advocate s contention that they had take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350 (S.C.), laying down the ratio that unless there is something in the language of the statute indicating the need to establish the element of mens rea it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. To the same effect, was the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 230 (S.C.). It was observed by their Lordships in the said decision as follows :- The Statute we are concerned with prescribes a strict liability, without need to establish mens rea. The Actus Reus is itself the offence. Applying the ratio of the above principle so laid down, we find that the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
