TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as incharge of the day to day functioning of the company. Such being the facts, the involvement and knowledge of the appellant in diversion of the goods in local market is writ large on the face of the record - No perversity is pointed out in such factual conclusions. Clause(a) of section 112 of the Customs Act, provides for penalty against the person who in relation 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. In such a case, the penalty that could be imposed would be an amount not exceeding the value of goods or ₹ 5000/whichever is greater. Even if therefore, invoking this provision would require men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing such manufactured goods. 4. The Customs Investigation Wing however found that in breach of such a condition, the goods were diverted to the local market and in fact, the goods never reached the factory of the company situated at Karnataka. On such basis, a showcause notice was issued by the competent authority on 31.07.1998 alleging inter alia, that the present appellant and other directors of the company had jointly diverted the goods in the local market which were meant for reexport. The competent authority therefore, primafacie , found the following breaches: Therefore, from the above facts and narration it appears that M/s SSFPL has violated the following conditions of Notfn. No.140/87 dtd.27.3.97 (parawise) : ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. 6. After completing the proceedings, the adjudicating authority passed its order in original dated 27.08.2007, in which, he held the company liable for the alleged breaches on account of which the goods would be liable for confiscation under section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed penalty of ₹ 50 lakhs on the company under section 111(a) of the Act in addition to confirming the duty demand. He imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs against the assessee under section 112(a) of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 20 lakhs on Shri R.N.Shetty, the Chairman of the Company. The rest of the directors were absolved of their liabilities. 7. The appellant challenged the said order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, he had admitted that the application for advance licenses for import of the goods was submitted to the licensing authority under his signature and that he looked after the day to day affairs of the company and he reported directly to Shri R.N.Shetty, the Chairman. In fact, this stand was reiterated by him in his defense statement filed in response to the show cause notice. On the basis of such materials, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellant along with Shri R.N.Shetty were the persons responsible for rendering the goods liable for confiscation. 10. It appears quite undisputable that the appellant had signed the necessary documents for import of goods, the goods upon import though were required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
