Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Metacon Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev) , Kolkata

2015 (12) TMI 717 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Imposition of penalty on a person treating as Importer - import of goods without the knowledge of such person - whether appellant is liable to penalty and whether he should be held to be the importer of consignments of zinc Flux Skimming's for which two bills of entry were filed by CHA M/s. R.N. Lal & Bros - Held that:- appellant has denied to have imported the consignments for which bills of entry were filed by the CHA. The signatures on the bills of entry have been found to be not made by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny person who claims himself to be an importer. Appellant has neither filed any bill of entry nor is he claiming the ownership of the imported goods. Circumstantial evidences discussed by the adjudicating authority only raise a suspicion about the appellant but it is a settled position of law now that suspicion howsoever grave can not take the place of an evidence. There is no evidence on record that appellant has signed the bills of entry and has given all the documents personally to the Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

posed upon the appellant by Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Kolkata, west Bengal under OIO No. 02/CUS/Com(P)/WB/2006 dt 24/02/2006. 2 Sh. N.K. Chowdhary (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that no provision of the Customs Act 1962 has been quoted in the order portion of OIO dt 24/02/2006 as to under which Section penalty of ₹ 20 lakh has been imposed upon his clients. Learned Advocate argued appellant had not imported the present consignment of Zinc Flux Skimming's f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the effect that he has not received any authorization from the appellant. That adjudicating authority in his findings has only discussed circumstances on the basis of presumption & surmises that appellant is the importer of the contraband consignments. 2 Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument:- (i) Pradeep Arora Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2002(150) ELT 1301(Tri.-Del.)] (ii) Narendra B. Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai [2014 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i.-Mumbai)] (Viii) B. Lakshmichand Vs Government of India [1983(12) ELT 322 (Mad.)] (ix) Delco Precitone Jewelers (P) Ltd. Commissioner of Cus. New Delhi [2000 (124) ELT 1105 (Tribunal) 3. Sh. A. Kumar AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the bench go through the findings of the OIO passed by the Adjudicating authority. It was his case that documents enclosed with the bills of entry were such which could have been made available only with the consent & knowledge of the appellant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntry were filed by the CHA. The signatures on the bills of entry have been found to be not made by the appellant. Even the CHA who filed bills of entry has not implicated the appellant to have authorized him for filing the impugned bills of entry. There are few statements of Sh. Nanda Ganguly, Sh. Uttam Swarckar, a Sircar holder of CHA , Sh. Sunil Agarwal, a metal Trdev and Md. Fazlul Hoque to the effect that appellant was making certain enquires regarding transportation & importation of zin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecord that appellant has signed the bills of entry and has given all the documents personally to the Customs House agent or any other person. Penalty can not be imposed upon the appellant on the basis of suspicion created by presumption & surmises by holding him to be the importer. 4.1 Appellant has relied upon, interalia, on the case laws of Narendra B. Jain Vs CC(Adj) Mumbai (Supra) and Chemworld Inc Vs CC (Import), Nhava sheva to argue that no penalty is imposable upon him as appellant is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version