1999 (9) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hile appellant No. 1 is aggrieved by the confiscation of the seized silk yarn and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. 2. We have heard Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate for appellant No. 2 and Shri S.C. Jindal, learned Advocate for appellant No. 1 and Shri M.M. Dube and Shri K. Panchat Charam learned DRs. 3. The finding of the adjudicating authority regarding the yarn is that it has been brought into India in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1993 and hence liable for, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and that the appellant No. 1 is involved in smuggling of Chinese raw silk yarn under the cover of unrelated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stated that the second set of accounts were opened by him on the instructions of Bhagwan Tulsiyan, Chief Executive of appellant No. 1 in November, 1996 i.e. immediately after the seizure of silk yarn at Varanasi. The stock register indicates that the quantity of 4965.520 kgs. of mulberry raw silk yarn was issued to M/s. Tirupati Textiles, Bangalore vide challan dated 10-8-1996, the stock register showing sub-entries for the same quantity on 30-6-1996 have been admitted to be fake. Thus it transpires that appellant No. 1 manipulated records so as to show that the quantity of 615.370 kgs. of mulberry raw silk yarn i.e. the consignment seized at Varanasi was issued to M/s. Vikas Silk Mills, Varanasi by making a false entry in Challan No. 658.....