2017 (11) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at M/s. Cochin Plastics Pvt. Ltd. is a unit in the Cochin Export Processing Zone, Kakkanad, Cochin-30.  The Development Commissioner, Cochin Export Processing Zone (CEPZ) issued a Letter of Permission to M/s. Cochin Plastics Pvt. Ltd. for functioning.  The validity period of the permission was from 09/07/1996 to 08/07/1997.  Even though this unit was incorporated on 06/02/1996 for manufacture of vide shells and components, the unit appears to be a non-starter for various reasons.  As per the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, the unit is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having the following persons as the shareholders: 1. Shri George Pandicheril, 2. Mrs. Sally Georg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the above persons.  After following due process of law, the  Commissioner of Customs ordered for the confiscation of the goods covered by the Bill of Entry No.847 dt. 04/07/1997 and Bill of Entry No.706 dt. 06/06/1997 and imposed the penalty on the appellant also along with other Directors. 3.   Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record and without considering the legal provisions.  He further submitted that the appellant was never a Director of the company nor was he involved in the company as an Officer-in-charge of the affairs of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant was allegedly made Director on 14/08/1997 much after of the import of the goods.  We also find that the Department has not been able to bring on record sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was involved in the affairs of the company and there was a mens rea on his part.  In view of lack of evidence against the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant is not sustainable.  Therefore, we accept the appeal of the appellant and drop the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.  Accordingly appeal is allowed.  (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 31/08/2017)
Case la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X