2000 (6) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartments' case is that the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector directing confiscation of certain quantities of dyes and chemicals imported by M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries in contravention of the Import Control Restrictions and imposition of penalties on the respondents had been erroneously set aside by the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order. The prayer is for upholding the Order-in-Original and for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. 4. Brief facts are that Show Cause Notice issued to the four appellants, among others, asked them to show cause why various types of dyes (imported under Bill of Entry No. 2297, dated 26-10-1990) which were seized on 22-4-1991 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in trafficking of Import Export Pass book and therefore the goods had become liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and the said persons liable to penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 5. When the matter came up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original. He found that the allegation that there was a sale of the licence by M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries had not been proved since the basis for making the said allegation was the statement given by Shri Prabhudas Ganatra. Collector (Appeals) found that the order of the Additional Collector directing confiscation of the goods for the alleged contravention of Notification No. 117/88 was incon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....traction cannot be brushed aside. Further, since the import had taken place under a valid licence, the provisions of neither Section 111(d) nor Section 111(o) were attracted in the facts of the case. 6. On behalf of the Department, it is argued that the appellants namely, Shri Prabhudas Ganatra Mahindra Shrimankar and Vikram Garodia had given clear confessional statements admitting to sale and purchase of the Import-Export pass book. Further the retractions made by Shri Prabhudas Ganatra and Vikram Garodia were made at a very late stage and they cannot be accepted. Further in the case of Mahindra Shrimankar, there was not even such a retraction. Inasmuch as M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries had knowingly indulged in trafficking in Impor....