9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one M/s. Prime Textiles filed Bill of Entry through M/s. Ganapati Warehousing Ltd. The goods were declared as "Polyester Fabrics". The consignment consisted of 73 cartoons with gross weight 68,900 Kgs. and totally valued at Rs. 3,23,425/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Docks Clerk; that he did not have a Customs Pass and that he was contacted by M/s. Prime Textiles through one Shri P.M. Hotkar, a temporary employee of the CHA; that the present as well as previous consignments of M/s. Prime Textiles were handled by him for customs clearance with the held of Shri Hotkar; that all the work relating to M/s. Prime Textiles regarding Customs clearance were solely hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant has helped one Shri Hotkar in clearance of the goods by mis-declaration of the description of the goods, which amounts to adding and abetting and the appellant is liable for penalty. 4. Heard. 5. I have gone though the statements recorded on 2-2-2007 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he stated that parties approach him with&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 936951 both dated 18-10-2006; that description given in respect of all these Bills of Entry was Polyester Fabrics/Polyester Fabrics Embroidery; that all the work was handled by him with the help of Shri Hotkar. The facts that the sample drawn and the sample changed was not known to the appellant. 6. From the statement, it is clear that the samples were not drawn by the appellant and moreover, fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
