TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of ₹ 4,000 on the respondent firm M/s. S.K. Senjan Chettiar Sons and of a sum of ₹ 1,000 on its partner S.A. Rajamannar. (Out of these two appeals one appeal relates to the penalty levied on the firm and the other appeal relates to penalty levied on the partner). 2. These penalties were levied by the first authority on the footing that the respondent-firm allowed the importer to take delivery of the goods eventhough the importer did not pay fully, and there was deficiency in payment to the extent of the abovesaid US $ 2725. The respondent has allowed the importer to do so without the importer furnishing the trust receipt. Thereafter also the importer did not pay the said sum but adjusted it with his earlier claim agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms is established. 3. But the learned counsel for the appellant points out that this reasoning of the Appellate Board is not at all acceptable but erroneous in law, since the respondent firm has not only allowed the foreign buyer to take delivery of the goods without furnishing trust receipt, but has also actually agreed to the abovesaid adjustment claimed by the foreign buyer on the ground of past defective supply of goods by the respondent-firm. 4. We also find the following passage from the first authority's order:- ...After taking delivery of the goods the buyers have raised various claims on the past exports and wanted this consignment as a compensation for the past defective supply of goods. Shri. S.A. Rajamannar had vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e making a false claim. So, it cannot be said that the first authority has come to the conclusion that the consignee was actually making false claim or the first authority assumed that the consignee was making a false claim. 7. If really the respondent-firm has not agreed to the set off claimed by the importer then the consignee-exporter would have atleast sent a legal notice against the importer claiming the above said US $ 2725. Admittedly, no such legal notice even has been sent by the respondent-firm. Therefore, the reasoning of the Appellate Board is totally unacceptable and erroneous in law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on two decisions of this Court, one reported in P. Varadareddy v. The Additional Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
