2001 (1) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om Newyork describing the goods as "Indian made gold". The consignee was M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as REL) and the goods had been sent by M/s. Rajesh Imports Inc., Newyork (hereinafter referred to as RII). The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on REL and Rs. 2 lakhs on RII under Section 112(a) was also imposed, as it was found that REL had concerned themselves in dealing with the imported gold which they knew or had reasons to believe was liable for confiscation and also for obstructing departmental officers from discharging their duties on RII for having abetted REL and also having concerned themselves in dealing with goods which they knew or had reasons to believe to be liable for confiscation. 2. We have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962." (b) It is an admitted position, that RII had sent this consignment to REL but instead of filing the papers for clearance of the said consignment they requested the Asstt. Commissioner ACC, Bangalore vide a letter dated 9-6-1999 for permission to reship the consignment received on 8-6-1999 on the ground that they are not in a position to clear the same due to price fluctuations and subsequently have also requested for waiver of production of special import licence. Investigations conducted revealed the subject goods were part of certain consignments exported to RII Newyork vide invoice No. 145 & 146 by REL. Part of the said jewellery so exported wa....