TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e played by Shri Radheshyam Rander in abetting such diversion by procuring the goods from M/s. STC and disposed of the same for a commission of 3.5%. Considering the role played by Shri Radheshyam Rander, he is liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - quantum of penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - C/344/2006 - 23180 / 2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel, For the Respondent Per : V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No.8/2006-Cus. dated 21.4.2006. The Directorate of Revenue Intell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal. In the present appeal, Shri Radheshyam Rander has challenged the penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- imposed on him. 3. With the above background, we heard Shri Laxmi Narayana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue. 4. In the impugned order, the role played by Shri Radheshyam Rander has been discussed. Shri Radheshyam Rander is alleged to have made high seas sales of several consignments imported by M/s. STC and had received copies of bills of entry relating to such imports. DRI observed that he had purchased about 99 tonnes of duty free raw silk yarn removed without payment of duty and without documents, even though he knew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y procuring the goods from M/s. STC and disposed of the same for a commission of 3.5%. In the facts and circumstances of the case, by considering the role played by Shri Radheshyam Rander, we are of the view that he is liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. But considering his role that he was only a peripheral player in the large scale misuse of the EOU scheme, we are of the view that the penalty imposed on him merits reduction. 7.1 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed is reduced from ₹ 10,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). 8. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is disposed of. (Order was pronounced in open court on 18.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
