9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments in good faith to help his friend Vinodkumar Jatia, the petitioner ought not to be saddled with penalty and in any event, the personal penalty sustained by the Tribunal at Rs. 7.5 lakhs is unduly harsh and excessive. 2.Facts having a bearing on the subject matter of the present petiton are that two consignments of low carbon mild steel defective sheets/coils weighing 179.860 MTs. and 205.779 MTs. were imported vide vessel 'KRANJ' under two bills of lading both dated 15-9-1989. As per the IGM, the said goods were shipped from Yokohama, Japan and were to be discharged at Mumbai and the consignee shown therein was M/s. Punjab & Sind Bank, Bombay or "To order". 3.On 11th December, 1989 two warehousing bills of entry were presented on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er operated the said bank account. The petitioner admitted that he had signed importer's declaration and declaration under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, however, stated that all further actions were done by Mr. Jatia and the petitioner was not concerned with it. 5.On 1-9-1993 a show cause notice was issued to all the persons concerned including the petitioner, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 calling upon them to show cause as to why the imported goods should not be confiscated for misdeclaration of quantity and value and why personal penalty should not be levied against the persons named therein. After hearing all the parties, the Collector of Customs by his order dated 11-8-1994 held that the imported goods were liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weight shown in the bills of entry. He submitted that in fact all the evidence on record show that the petitioner was unaware of any misdeclaration. Similarly, the petitioner did not now anything about the requirement of the import licences to clear the goods in question which were ultimately confiscated. Accordingly, the counsel submitted that the petitioner did not commit any act which rendered the goods liable for confiscation. In other words, it was submitted that the act/omission of the petitioner was not conscious or with knowledge to commit any illegality under the Customs Act. 8.Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that having set aside the penalty levied on the customs house agents the Tribunal ought to have set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Bill of Entry as a proprietor of M/s. A.V. Impex he knew fully well that the declaration was with a view to seek clearance of the imported goods as proprietor of M/s. A.V. Impex, although he was not actually carrying on the business in the name of M/s. A.V. Impex. Thus, the petitioner wanted to assist Mr. Jatia to clear the goods in the name of any entity which was not in existence. Moreover, admittedly the petitioner opened a bank account in the name of M/s. A.V. Impex in Punjab & Sind Bank. It may be that the petitioner has not operated the said bank account but the fact that the petitioner agreed to lend his name for opening of a bank account in the name of M/s. A.V. Impex clearly shows that the said account was opened with a vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
