1993 (4) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 consignments of SKF brand ball bearings against import licence which was valid only upto 30-11-1986. They filed B/E in January, 1987 for their clearance. However, the officers of SIIB of Bombay Customs noticed that the date of B/L was different from the date of shipment and the date of shipment being 2-12-1986, the licence has already expired and hence it was not valid to cover the import. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Dy. Collector, the goods were ordered absolute confiscation. The respondents M/s. Industrial Components Agencies were also imposed with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of each consignment. However, before the Collector (Appeals), both the Respondents M/s. Industrial Components Agencies and M/s. Skefco I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g is concerned, is misplaced and is therefore dismissed. We also dismiss the appeal of M/s. Skefco India Bearings, as withdrawn. 4. Now coming to the appeal filed by the Revenue, since the Collector (Appeals) has set aside the penalty of Rs. One lakh for each consignment on M/s. Industrial Components Agencies, the Revenue have come up in appeal against the said order. 5. Shri Arun Tandon, the ld. SDR, mainly contended that the respondents came to know of the correct date of shipment being 2-12-1986 as early as on 18-12-1986. They have also written to the Bankers not to open the L/C vide their letter dated 26-12-1986. However, all these documents were suppressed from the Department and the B/E was filed in January, 1987 giving the inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....strued to be a case of incorrect documents produced later to clear the goods under an invalid licence and cannot be construed to be a mis-declaration on the B/E. However, we are not coming to such a conclusion. Our findings are different for the following reasons: As seen from the letter dated 18-12-1986 from M/s. Dena Bank it is found that the bankers have indicated about the discrepancy in the date of shipment and sought for instructions as to whether payment could be made. Hence, from this letter it is evident that till 18-12-1986, the respondents themselves were also in the dark about the date of shipment. Hence, there could not have been any prior conspiracy justifying mala fides. Under their letter dated 26-12-1986, the respondents....