9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted an Advance Licence dated 22.10.2002 from Jt. Director, DGFT, Kanpur for import of 1050 MTs Garlic for CIF value of Rs. 1,67,21,000/-. Pursuant to the said licence, M/s Frost International Ltd. intimation imported Garlic from China through JNPT and Chennai Port. The present appellant was known to the Director's of M/s Frost International Ltd. namely Mr. Uday J Desai and Mr. Sunil Verma. At the request of Mr. Desai, the appellant introduced one CHA namely, M/s. D.R. Sonata & Sons for assisting in clearance of garlic imported by M/s. Frost. The appellant also acted as coordinator i.e. forwarded the documents received from importer at Kanpur to the CHA at Mumbai, as the importer was not having any office at Mumbai. All the clearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two consignments) of garlic was filed by M/s Kalpana Shipping Agencies CHA, and the remaining one consignment of 104MT garlic was filed by the M/s. D.R. Sonata & Sons CHA. A show-cause notice dated 28.01.2005 was issued on importers and among others on the appellant, wherein the appellant was alleged to having abetted in the illegal of diversion of 104 MT of garlic imported duty-free in the local market for it legal profit by M/s. FIL by introducing the CHA, in directing and instructing him from time to time, directing him to hand over the duty-free imported goods to M/s. Mehta ICC and Cold Storage, Navi Mumbai and also directing the said storage owner to deliver the stored goods to local persons. By such act of omission, and commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion by the main persons and while the company and its directors in such circumstances the status of this appellant being a co-noticee should also have settled. It is further contended that the learned Commissioner has misled on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of S. P. Cheng Naidu 1994 (1) SCC 1. It is further contended that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that in the case before the Apex Court it has been held that it is settled provision of law that the judgement of decree of obtained by practising fraud is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such facts not obtaining in the appellant's case, the ruling Relied upon is misplaced. The only finding against the appellant is that they have handed over the papers to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation to any goods, does or omits to do any Act, which Act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such an Act, is also liable to penalty. Here the appellant have admittedly assisted the importers and its directors in coordinating with the CHA and also the warehouse keeper in order to storage. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed is fit to be confirmed. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the role of the appellant is not restricted to introduction of the parties. The appellant have actively assisted M/s. FIL and its directors in diversion of the goods in the local market which were supposed were processed and the exported. In view of abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
