TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Customs, and, on revision by Ext. P-4 order by the Government of India. The 1st writ petitioner is the firm under the name and style, India Sea Foods. The 2nd writ petitioner is its Managing Partner. In brief, the firm was granted an import licence dated 27-3-1965 to import Refrigeration Compressors except 15 to 150 TRC (Ton Refrigeration Capacity) and controls, for installing cold storage ice plant and blast freezers, and certain other items of goods. It placed an order with Frick Company, Waynesbore, Pennysylvania, U.S.A. through M/s. Bombay Amonia Private Ltd., for supply of two 6'' x 6'' Frick Amonia Compressors, with a capacity of 7.54 TRC at O. Psig Suction Pressure, while running at 450 RPM. When the consignment reached the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, to a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under Section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding five times the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under cls. (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or five times the difference between the declared val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of that clause the penalty can be imposed on any person, who, in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation. It can also be imposed on any one who abets the doing or omission of such an act. We do not see, and are unable to understand, why the firm and the partners thereof cannot both be adjudged guilty of contravention or be subjected to a penalty under the provisions of the act. It is possible to find, as in this case, the firm guilty of an act or omission which renders the goods liable to confiscation, and at the same time to find the partners thereof guilty of abetment in the doing or omissions of such act. It seems possible again, to find the legal entity of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental authorities and also in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. There is no specific advertence to this aspect of the case nor any finding in regard to this aspect, by the learned single Judge in his judgment. But that is a matter which can cut both ways. Counsel for the appellant fairly realised that having regard to the terms and the language of Section 112(a) of the Act, the extreme contention that a penalty is not imposable both on the firm and also on the Managing Partner thereof, cannot sustain. But he took his stand that neither the show cause notice, nor the charge against the appellants had referred to any abetment as mentioned in Section 112(a) of the Act as against the second writ petitioner so as to justify i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
