TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consignments which were diverted. The evidence examined by the impugned order has not been controverted with any authority. Penalty - Held that: - The manager of the second appellant had in fact confirmed that they are aware of the diversion of the imported cargo and they were involved in arranging the transport of such diversion. The original authority on careful consideration of the role of the CHA in the above mentioned violations concluded that such action on the part of the second appellant will attract penal consequence - penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/386 & 387/2008 - Final Order No. 42041-42042 / 2017 - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri B. Ravichandr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be disposed of or utilized in any manner except for utilization in discharge of export obligation or for replenishment of such materials and the materials so replenished shall not be sold or transferred to any other person. The notification also stipulates that the details of name and address of the supporting manufacturers are to be clearly mentioned in the licence and the bond executed by the importer should bind themselves for fulfillment of various conditions in the notification. The proceedings initiated against the appellants concluded by the impugned order. The original authority upheld the charge of diversion of imported cargo and demanded the duty forgone amounting to ₹ 8,48,867/- apart from ordering confiscation of goods v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter-manufacture to register with the central excise department. The conditions of Notification No. 94/2004-Cus. have not been violated. It is also submitted that the amendment in the license made by Jt. DGFT in 2006 should be considered retrospectively. Finally, the main appellant submitted that technical breach of any condition could not be held against them. The second appellant (CHA) in their appeal submitted that they are an agent of importer for a limited purpose of clearance through customs and they cannot be fastened with additional burden regarding conditions for duty-free import of goods. Penalty can be imposed on the person only if he had knowledge or reason to believe that goods are liable for confiscation. No penalty can be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y establishes that the import consignments have been mis-declared regarding the contents of the goods. In fact, have been diverted to places other than the ones entered in the license. We find that belated attempt by the main appellant to bring in the address of other companies, as if a supporting manufacturer is not relevant to decide already imported consignments which were diverted. The evidence examined by the impugned order has not been controverted with any authority. These are corroborated by the drivers, clerk of the CHA and also the jurisdictional officers of the given address who also reported the receipt of the said cargo which were already cleared from Chennai. The overwhelming evidence which is recorded in the impugned order co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
