9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) had rendered the goods in question liable for confiscation and, therefore, they were liable to be penalized under Section 112 of the Act. The goods in question were "Ink Catridges - Black" covered under Bill of Entry No. 5011, dt. 9-3-99 which was filed in the name of M/s. Sri Kavithapriya Exports by M/s. Tamilnad Clearing and Shipping (CHA). The Bill of Entry had been filed under DEPB scheme. The goods were examined, whereupon a part of it was found to be "Toner Cartridges" against the description (Ink Cartridges - Black) declared in the Bill of Entry. The value of the goods also was found to have been misdeclared. From the results of investigations made by the department, it appeared to them that the goods had been actually imported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and considering their submissions, we find that confiscation of the goods was proposed in the SCN under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and ordered likewise by the Commissioner. The goods were absolutely confiscated, apparently for the reason that nobody had claimed the goods. The confiscation was on the ground of misdeclaration of description, quantity and value of the goods. The allegation raised in the SCN against the present appellants was that they had rendered the goods liable for confiscation and hence attracted the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act. The question to be examined is whether the appellants had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) ibid. The department has no case that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng goods. Again, no finding to this effect was recorded by learned Commissioner.
4. Yet another relevant fact emanating from the records is that M/s. Daisytek India (Mumbai) was a proprietorship run by the wife of Sri Gopal K. Sapru. Even if it be held that Sri Sapru committed or abetted any offence in relation to the subject goods, it would be no reason to penalize his wife. A penalty under Section 112 is a personal penalty. To impose penalty on M/s. Daisytek India means a penalty on Mrs. Gopal Sapru, who was not a party to these proceedings.
5. For the reasons aforementioned, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants and allow the appeals.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
