TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Collector found that the duty sought to be evaded in this case was approximately Rs. 1,40,000. He therefore imposed a penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Different amounts of penalty imposed on other noticees are not under challenge in this appeal at the instance of M/s. Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 2. Appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 2469/219, dated 21-11-90 and clearance of the goods was claimed duty free under Import Export Passbook No. 0004098, dated 21-3-90. Declaration claiming concession under Notification No. 117/1988, dated 31-3-88 duly signed by the Director of the appellant M/s. Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was attached to the Bill of Entry. On 29-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty. This position was later changed and it was contended that Shri Biren Shah, Director of M/s. Audio Visual Devices Pvt. Ltd., Bombay had placed the orders for the consignment and since it has been disowned by them it continues to be the property of the shipper. In the meantime under communication dated 13-1-91 Shri Biren Shah requested the Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) to allow him to file Bill of Entry in their name since the original import documents of the consignment under invoice No. 90/659A had been returned unpaid by M/s. Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and the shippers were pressing hard for settlement of the shipment. He was also able to produce copy of a Fax message dated 14-1-91 from M/s. Conquest (Japan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir name. There was no application for amendment of the Import Manifest. Apart from the above it is not a case where amendment could be granted under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act as required conditions are not satisfied. The request made by the shippers to allow release of the goods to M/s. Audio Visuals Devices Pvt. Ltd. is also not bona fide. The Commissioner, therefore, found that the import was in contravention of law and, therefore, goods are liable to be confiscated. Each of the parties who were involved in the transaction was found liable to pay penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that their appeal is limited to imposition of penalty on them and ....