9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant imported 16 consignments between February, 1993 to February, 1994. The Customs department received information that the appellant disposed off considerable quantities of these chemicals sold to Kantilal Manilal and Company and partly to Hoechst (India) Limited, searched the premises of the appellant and the others. The officers seized sizeable quantities of chemicals from the warehouse of Suyog Carriers in Bhiwandi and from the premises of Kantilal Manilal and Company. Subsequent investigations including recording of statement of various persons were conducted. Notice was issued to the appellant before us, Kantilal Manilal and Company, and Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., clearing agents, proposing confiscation of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey did not know anyone from Bombay Pharma Products. Kantilal Manilal and Company had paid the appellant total of Rs. 1.02 crores towards the purchase of the goods cleared under the licence. Out of this amount, Rs. 80.77 lakhs was paid for goods already received by it. The balance of Rs. 21.80 lakhs was an advance payment for purchase of the 11,400 kgs. of oxytetracycline which was in the premises of Suyog Carriers. Pankaj Shah of Kantilal Manilal and Company has said that the advance has been paid to the appellant for purchase of oxytetracycline. The appellant's factory was at Indore whereas, the carrier had said that it is taking the goods to Daman. It is on these facts that the Commissioner concludes that this quantity had been sold. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took the goods from Bombay to Daman. It could well have kept the goods in Bombay or in any warehouse at Indore. These factors strongly suggest that the claim that the goods have been taken to Daman for storage is an afterthought made with a view to putting forth a defence. The fact that the carrier of the goods did not have any knowledge of dealing with the appellant is also significant. Yeshwant Pawar, proprietor of Suyog Carrier has said that he has received instructions for transport of the goods to Daman not from the appellant or anybody from the appellant but from Atul Shah of Kantilal Manilal and Company, asking him to take the goods "in the name of the appellant". This is confirmed by the statement of Dinesh Ved of Kantilal Manilal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
