TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsignments under export intercepted and those already exported earlier were enquired into. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Kevin Ltd., its Managing Director and the present appellant and others. The Commissioner after holding the hearing, passed an order . (i) Confiscating the seized goods under provisions of Section 113(d) read with Section 111(o) 110(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Demanded duty of Rs. 2,32,132/- on Raw Mulbery Silk imported duty free and cleared under Notification 81/95 Cus., dated 31-3-1995 supported by Notification 32/97 Cus., dated 1-4-1997 read with Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 along with interest under Section 28 AB. (iii) A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 114(1) Customs Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eating the reply filed by the company to be read as part and parcel of his reply. He has also cited certain Case Laws and contended that the present proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction. I have already considered all the submissions, including the issue relating to the jurisdiction which has already been discussed at length in the preceding paragraphs and hence not repeated herin again. I have also gone through the statements of Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana recorded on various dates. I notice that Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana had clearly admitted the charges about the sale of duty free imported goods in the open market, substitution of goods manufactured out of old and used defective fabrics, mis-declaration of value in the export c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extenso in paras 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and in para 59 of the impugned order, came to a conclusion about the willful mis-statement of M/s. Kevin Ltd., inasmuch as they unauthorisedly sold the imported SILK which was not permissible. Thereafter relying on Supreme Court decision in Shashank Foods (P) Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.), came to the liabilities as determined by him. We find no challenge, to these findings of the Adjudicator before us. We do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at. (d) The facts of the case clearly reveal the role as the KING PIN, in committing the acts of violations of the Customs Acts by the appellant before us, who has conducted the affairs of M/s. Kevin Ltd., a family concern of his mother, his w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
