TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not find any merits in the appeal and dismiss the same as infructuous. The fact that Shri Santosh Nair (sales agent) has issued the Proforma invoice as directed by Vice President (Sales) of the supplier, has not been controverted by the revenue in the appeal filed. Also it is fact on record that the import documents i.e. Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of Commercial Invoice 328 32686 dated 28.12.1998 issued by the supplier M/s Signtech USA. Since the Proforma issued by the Shri Santosh Nair was not even the basis for filing the import documents the relevance of the same in the current proceedings for imposition of penalty is not understood. In fact said Proforma invoice was never the part of the import documentation, though it was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shailesh Visaria and M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd., Settlement Commission has passed Final Order No 15/2003-Cus dated 08.04.2003, wherein liability is admitted for ₹ 58,51,872/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) and the same has been settled. The applicant(s) had already paid ₹ 57,01,124/- during the course of investigation. The rest amount has also been reported to be paid on 22.04.2003. M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd and Shri Shailesh Visaria M D., M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd., have been granted full immunity from payment of fine, penalty and interest under the Customs Act, 1962. They were also granted full immunity from prosecution in terms of Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. 5. Taking all the above facts and observations into consideration, I hereby drop penal action against Shri Santosh Nair. 2.1 This order was reviewed by the Board under erstwhile Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and appeal was directed to be filed to tribunal on following grounds:- i) The Commissioner erred in finding that Shri Santosh Nair did not play any role in the evasion of the customs duty by M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd. Shri Santosh Nair was working as Sales Representative of M/s Signtech USA in India and all negotiations including preparation of Proforma Invoice for the Import of the goods was handled by him and issued by him. ii) The Commissioner ought to have considered the statement of Shri Santosh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. (c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the adjudicating authority ought to have proceeded against Shri Santosh Nair u/s 112(a) and/ or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the case be remanded back for considering afresh. (e) Pass such an order as Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper. 2.3 On the basis of the above review order, revenue filed appeal No C/1084/2004, making M/s Big Vision Pvt Ltd as respondents. 2.4 Subsequently they filed another appeal No C/303/2005, along with application for application for condonation of delay making Shri Santosh Nair as respondent. The application for Condonation of Delay seeking condonation of delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roforma invoice as directed by Vice President (Sales) of the supplier, has not been controverted by the revenue in the appeal filed. Also it is fact on record that the import documents i.e. Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of Commercial Invoice 328 32686 dated 28.12.1998 issued by the supplier M/s Signtech USA. Since the Proforma issued by the Shri Santosh Nair was not even the basis for filing the import documents the relevance of the same in the current proceedings for imposition of penalty is not understood. In fact said Proforma invoice was never the part of the import documentation, though it was part of negotiation documents between the foreign supplier and the Importer in India. 5.2 In view of above discussions we find that S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
