9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (goods were not physically available for confiscation), confirmed duty demand of Rs. 44,35,996/- payable on the goods on the ground of violation of the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 under which they were imported duty free, for the purpose of utilization in the manufacture of export products, but were instead diverted to the local market, and adjusted deposit of Rs. 18.80 lakhs against the confirmed demand and directed payment of balance duty by the importer, together with interest, and imposed penalties inter alia upon Shri Bhagwanji Trivedi. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs each upon M/s. H.R. Trading Co. and M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 20 lakhs on Shri Anil Parikh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d export Synthetic Enamel for an FOB value of Rs. 88.20 Lakhs; after obtaining the license he had signed all blank letter heads of his company and handed over the same to one Anil Parikh from whom he received a compensation of Rs. 16.5 lakhs; he was informed that the money was given by M/s. H.R. Trading Company and M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. in cash in order to enable him (Bhagwanji G. Trivedi) to deposit the same in the Bank and obtain pay orders to show that he had purchased the goods on High Sea Sale basis from these two companies who were shown as the importers of 80 MTs of Titanium Dioxide; he did not make any payment to the foreign supplier; he was not aware as to where the goods had gone after customs clearance and that he had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhagwanji G. Trivedi wanted to obtain advance license from DGFT, Mumbai. Shri Kirit Shah gave him the required documents and necessary application signed by Shri Bhagwanji Trivedi; thereafter he (Bharat Shah) submitted the application to DGFT; that he did not know Shri Bhagwanji G. Trivedi nor had seen him till he received the first advance license dated 22-3-1994; in respect of the second licence dated 16-8-1994 all relevant documents were given by Shri Kirit Shah; that he received Rs. 2 lakhs as remuneration for procuring the advance license. 7. Shri Rajesh Gandhi has stated that he was working as license broker and that he had received a commission of 1% as brokerage for the transaction between M/s. C.J. Shah, M/s. H.R. Trading Co, M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the requirement of High Sea Sale agreement had been complied with; that he was under the impression that the export obligation against this license must have been completed and therefore he had not sent the goods to Shri Bhagwanji G. Trivedi or supporting manufacturer. Shri Ajay Gandhi admitted his mistake and voluntarily agreed to pay duty to the extent of Rs. 12 lakhs. 9. Shn Bharat H. Shah admitted that he had acted as a broker in the transaction between M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Bhagwanji G. Trivedi; that after utilizing the license he had handed over the same to Shri Rajesh Gandhi; that he had received, Rs. 23 lakhs in instalments through representative of M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. for making payment to Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d handled clearance of 40 MTs of duty free Titanium Dioxide imported against advance license issued to M/s. Bhagwanji G. Trivedi, and that the clearance documents were given by M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. arid that the goods were cleared and sent to Bhiwandi as per their instructions (Instructions of M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd.). 13. There is no evidence on record to prove that any of the appellants knew that, by virtue of transactions entered into with the license holder the goods with which they were dealing, had become liable to confiscation. The existence of such knowledge is sought to be inferred with reference to the circumstantial evidence in the form of cash deals and high sea sale transactions. These circumstances are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12(b). 14. The adjudicating authority has proceeded on the premise that it was inconceivable that a person of the standing of the appellants would not have tried to find out whether the raw material purchased by them was tainted or not. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is based only upon presumption and conjecture, and not on the basis of any proof of knowledge or reasonable belief on their part that they were dealing with goods liable to confiscation. The Commissioner, further, holds that license was subject to actual user conditions which is incorrect-the license was not subject to any such condition. Further, there was no such allegation in the show cause notice. Unlike an actual user license, advance license issued in terms of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
