2002 (9) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry was filed by any one. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the persons whose name appeared in the invoices and the Bill of Lading. They were asked to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. 3. Shri K. Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had entered into an agreement for supply of scrap with M/s. EFP International Inc., New York. He submits that the present consignment was not ordered by the appellants. He submits that the appellants had nothing to do with the imported goods. Referring to some case law as also the definition of 'import'. Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants were not owner of the goods. It was the shipper who was the owne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 32 (Bom.) and Pacific International Traders v. UOI - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 544 (Bom.). Ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that no case is made out for imposition of penalty. He, therefore, prays that the orders imposing penalty on the appellants may be set aside. 6. Shri Rajeev Tandon, Ld. DR submits that in the instant case, the Bill of Lading and the invoices pertaining to the goods showed the appellants as the consignees. He submits that the appellants had imported earlier consignment from the same firm; that consignment became the subject matter of dispute which was settled by the appellants under the settlement scheme. He submits that the present consignment was in the pipe line when the dispute on the earlier c....