2001 (6) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aimed irregular drawbacks, enquiries were launched. Consignments under export intercepted and those already exported earlier were enquired into. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Kevin Ltd., its Managing Director and the present appellant and others. The Commissioner after holding the hearing, passed an order.... (i)      Confiscating the seized goods under provisions of Section 113(d) read with Section 111(o) & 110(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii)     Demanded duty of Rs. 2,32,132/- on Raw Mulbery Silk imported duty free and cleared under Notification 81/95 Cus., dated 31-3-1995 supported by Notification 32/97 Cus., dated 1-4-1997 read with Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 along with i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalty on Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana under the provisions of Section 114(1), 114(iii) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri G.V Shankara Narayana in his reply dated 26-7-1999 has requested for treating the reply filed by the company to be read as part and parcel of his reply. He has also cited certain Case Laws and contended that the present proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction. I have already considered all the submissions, including the issue relating to the jurisdiction which has already been discussed at length in the preceding paragraphs and hence not repeated herin again. I have also gone through the statements of Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana recorded on various dates. I notice that Shri G.V. Shankara Narayana had cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Goods) Rules, 1996 (Referred to as Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 herein) which thereunder, prescribe the mode of recovery. (iv)             The goods under export were not dutiable, penalty could not therefore be imposed on presumptions and assumptions and relied upon 1978 (2) E.L.T. 172 (S.C). (c)      We find that the Commissioner had considered the very same grounds, urged before us and has dealt with them, in extenso in paras 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and in para 59 of the impugned order, came to a conclusion about the willful mis-statement of M/s. Kevin Ltd., inasmuch as they unauthorisedly sold the imported SILK which was not permissible. Thereafter ....