TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant in Appeal No. C-190/98 and Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant in Appeal No. C/191/98. No penalty was imposed on appellant in Appeal No. 282/98. 2. The facts of the cases are that the appellant in Appeals Nos. 190 and 191/98 are, one is company and the other one is a Director of the company. They inter alia imported four consignments of the following electronic goods, in respect of which they filed two Bills of Entry, details whereof are as under : B/E No. & Date Description Quantity Bill of Ldg. No. 3136/27-3-96 Blank Video Cassettes 31800 Pcs. 150090610, 6118612 3137/27-3-96 Disc Players 128 Pcs. 150090611 & 613 The consignments were initially deposited in the warehouse and thereafter part of the goods cleared for home consumption on the ex-bond B/E for home consumption. At the relevant time 20 pieces of Blank Video Cassettes and 27 pieces of Disc Players were lying in the warehouse. It is stated by the appellants that these two consignments were imported from M/s. Shail Trading, Singapore (the other appellant in Appeal No. 282/98). The appellants Kaiser Power Appliances Ltd. and Shri Gurudas S. Choitramani, Director state that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced the order on the appellant in Appeal No. 282/98 who gave certain banking facility for the import of the goods. After the goods were imported, it is argued, that the investigation done by the department viz. the statement of the appellant in C/191/98 and reliance thereon is not correct in law. Shri Nankani argued that it is no doubt true when on 31st October, 1997 the appellant in C/191/98 accepted payment of Rs. 12 lakhs which may indicate an evidence of under valuation, he specifically stated that it could not be treated like that. He says the subsequent statement of Shri Choitramani contradicts the same. Out of 12 lakhs, it was revealed that certain drafts to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs each (numbering 3) was paid to Rama Watch Inds. which came under the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Commissionerate. But Choitramani's subsequent statement and the statement of Rama Watch Co. contradict the above statement. Mr. V.S. Nankani further emphasizes the fact that if the department connect the payment of Rs. 6 lakhs then what happens to the remaining sum of Rs. 6 lakhs. What is the explanation the department could give? He further argues that at the threshold the documents relied by the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Radiant Plastic Industries P. Ltd. in Appeal No. C/192/96 vide Order No. 3752, dated 9-12-1996. It has been held that these types of goods are not a prohibited item. If that were to be so the question of charge under Sec. 111 (d) does not arise. He also states that since he is the owner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Sampat Raj Duggar - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 is entitled to re-shipment of the goods. He also argues that in respect of 44500 Pcs. covered by bill of lading, dated 25-7-1996, Exhibit 3 for which no Bills of Entry was filed under no stretch of imagination charge under Sec. 111(m) could be sustained in law. Words appearing in Sec. 111(m) viz. inconfirmity of the particulars filed in the Bs/E would show that the charge itself has no legs to stand. As far as the other consignment is concerned Shri Patel adopts the arguments of Shri V.S. Nankani. 6. The ld. D.R. adopted the reasoning of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as the valuation of the imported product is concerned, it is to be noted that the statement of Choitramani made on 31st October refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods were sold in the market in June, 1996. How the goods which had been given in March, 1996 could have been paid belatedly in June, July, 1996. It is not possible for us to correlate with the same. In fact one cannot agree with the finding given by the adjudicating authority in paragraph IVA of his order. Moreover, the documents are not the original as contended by the ld. Counsel Shri Nankani. The judgment in the case of 89 E.L.T. page 11 is clearly in favour of the appellants. It has been rightly argues by the appellants that provisions of Sec. 139 of the Customs Act have not been complied. That section reads that where any document is produced, by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or any other law or has been received from any place outside India, in the course of investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person under this Act, and such document is tendered in evidence against him or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him the Court shall presume about the genuineness of the documents. (In our view the Court cannot mean the adjudicating authority. This is....