TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has, therefore, no application in the facts of the present case. - 3285 of 1992 - - - Dated:- 1-9-1998 - S.C. Agrawal and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dated December 31, 1991 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the Order dated July 10, 1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi was dismissed. By his Order dated July 10, 1989 the Additional Collector of Customs had directed confiscation of the goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 104090, dated May 24, 1988 of synthetic rags and serviceable garments absolutely under Sections 111(d), 111(f), 111(i), 111( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and as such the whole consignment was liable to be confiscated under Section 119 of the Customs Act. Show cause notices were, therefore, issued to Sanjeev Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Arbindo Woollen Mills as well as to the appellants and one S.P. Goyal. After considering the replies of the said persons to the show cause notices the Additional Collector of Customs passed the order aforementioned. The Additional Collector in the said order has recorded the following finding :- Evidently, it is clear that Shri S.P. Goyal is the brain behind in fraudulently importing huge quantity of raw-material in the name of non-existant unit and Shri Sanjeev Kumar is his front man and M/s. Garg Woollen Mills is the beneficiaries in these imports. The n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Additional Collector. The submission is that since the penalty imposed on S.P. Goyal has been set aside by the Tribunal, the present impugned judgment of the Tribunal upholding the order for imposition of penalty on the appellant and confiscation of goods cannot be sustained and should be set aside. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated November 24, 1995 and we find that in the said order the Tribunal has distinguished the case of the appellant on the ground that in the impugned order passed in the case of the appellant the Tribunal was evaluating the evidence against the appellant and that the order in respect of the appellant does not apply to the case of S.P. Goyal when the Tribunal has found that evidence was not suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported and the patent fraud committed in importing the goods, the Additional Collector has found that the goods had been imported in violation of the provisions of Import (Control) Order, 1955 read with Section 3(i) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. In the circumstances he considered it appropriate to direct absolute confiscation of the goods which indicates that he did not consider it a fit case for exercise of his discretion to give an option to pay the redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act. The Tribunal also felt that since this was a case in which fraud was involved, the order of the Additional Collector directing absolute confiscation of the goods did not call for any interference. We do not find any reason to take a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
