TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners arises out of a separate and independent cause of action and, therefore, the declaration made by M/s. Jindals under KVSS and accepted by the Revenue cannot and does absolve the petitioners of their liability to pay the penalty. 2.The facts relevant to the present case are that some time in February, 1989, a rig ED-HOLT imported by M/s. Jindals arrived at Bombay. The said rig was imported by M/s. Jindals pursuant to a contract awarded to them by ONGC for charter of a Jack up rig called ED-HOLT. On arrival of the rig, the petitioners, as agents of M/s. Jindals filed Import General Manifest ('IGM' for short) on 2nd February, 1989. In the IGM, the rig was not declared as goods and the declaration made by them was as follows :- "M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the CEGAT. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal filed before the Supreme Court, it was noticed that the importers namely M/s. Jindals had filed a declaration under KVSS and the same has been accepted by the Customs authorities. In view of the acceptance of the declaration by M/s. Jindals, the appeal filed by the petitioners were allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to make representation before the appropriate authorities. Accordingly, petitioners on 14th February, 2000 made a representation to the Customs authorities stating that in view of the acceptance of the declaration filed by M/s. Jindals, immunity be granted to the petitioners from payment of penalty. The representation made by the petitioners was reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offence committed by the principal noticee and, therefore, the liability imposed upon the petitioners being independent, the declaration filed by the principal noticee has no relevance to the case of the petitioners. Mr. Desai submitted that in the present case, the petitioners had made a misdeclaration in the IGM and, therefore, the penalty levied upon the petitioners for misdeclaration in the IGM is independent of the penalty levied upon M/s. Jindals for illegal import of the rig. Hence declaration made by M/s. Jindals will not absolve the petitioners of their obligation to pay the penalty. 7.Mr. Desai submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar (supra) is not applicable to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly and legally, it was obligatory on the part of M/s. Jindals to file a Bill of Entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act and seek clearance on payment of duty. It is farther held that M/s. Jindals obtained clearance of the rig by making a misdeclaration in the IGM in connivance with the petitioners who were acting as agents of the petitioners. It is further held that by suppressing material facts both the importer i.e. M/s. Jindals and the petitioners as agents of M/s. Jindals obtained permission for amendment of IGM. Thus, from the order passed by the adjudicating authority it is clear that the misdeclaration in the IGM and the subsequent amendment of IGM was the joint action of both M/s. Jindals and the petitioners. Therefore, by a comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
