TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order. After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found - (a) Appellant in E/979/99 is a dealer and trader in Earthmover equipment parts in E/753/99 is a partnership firm engaged in business of supply/repair of ocean going vessels. (b) Officers of Marine Preventive Wing of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai, working on an intelligence that one M/s. San ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on the Appellant on the alleged violation of Section 112 (a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) The facts of the case clearly establish that the Appellant was in no way concerned in any manner with the import of the goods by SRP nor they had any knowledge or reasons to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 as there is not even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared by the said firm without following the due procedures. There was no evidence direct or circumstantial to show that the Appellant had any prior knowledge or knowledge even at the time of completing the transactions regarding the delivery of the imported goods that the goods were liable for confiscation. (iv) No material could be shown that appellant was aware that the goods they purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not what those instructions are. It is on record that they had supplied the proforma invoices for earth moving parts and there is no finding of the goods having been under valued as per the alleged shipment instruction. There is nothing on record that the appellant knew that goods would be imported declared as 'ship spares' or at prices less than or not as per proforma invoice prices. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titute for evidence. Therefore visit of penalty on such presumption and assumption of having knowingly dealt with the goods cannot be upheld. Penalty is request to be set aside. 2. Other appellants are not before us, no findings on liability to confiscation are being therefore arrived. 3. In view of the findings, these two appeals are allowed after setting aside the order as regard penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
