1999 (8) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g penalty and other action on account of short levy occasioned by wilful misstatement and suppression of facts by the importers, M/s. RST and their principals, M/s. SLS. It is not disputed that in the transaction in question the appellant had acted in the capacity of agent of Respondent No. 2. The adjudicating authority, i.e., the Collector of Customs, Bombay by Order-in-Original dated 3-5-1988 held as under :- The chassis should be valued on the basis of the valuation shown in the show cause notice and the demand notice i.e. at the unit price US $ 2,535 per chassis CIF Bombay. The rate of duty and the exchange should be calculated on the rate prevailing on the date of filing of the 4 Bs/E in respect of the 84 chassis out of 184 chassis ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t has achieved a finality and none of the parties was disputing the same. The only dispute surviving for adjudication is who should be held liable to pay. According to the appellant - M/s. RST, they were agents of the principals - M/s. SLS, the Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted placing reliance on Section 147 that except on proof of any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent resulting into no levy or short-levy or erroneous refund of the duty, the agent could not have been held liable. No such finding has been recorded by any of the authorities below. As such the appellant should have been exonerated and the liability fastened only on the principals, i.e., the Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e payment of any dues or charges then it was for them to take up the matter with SLS for such appropriate compensation. 5.It is true that the appellant did not in its memo of appeal implead the Respondent No. 2 as a party respondent before the CEGAT. However, the fact remains that the appellant and the Respondent No. 2 had both preferred their separate appeals before the Tribunal. Both the appeals were taken up analogously for hearing. The plea that not the appellant but the Respondent No. 2 should have been held liable for payment of duty was specifically raised and argued before the Tribunal in the presence of the latter. It cannot therefore be said that the Respondent No. 2 did not have the opportunity of meeting the plea. The order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X