2004 (8) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Pushpak Impex for import of diamonds worth Rs. 5,68,09,916/-. Same were ordered to be confiscated, penalties were imposed on the proprietors and the proprietary concerns under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds that the licences produced for the clearances of the subject goods were forged and the clearances were not required to be permitted and this attempt to clear such diamonds on these forged licences would call for confiscation of the said goods as clearance of diamonds were permissible only on valid transferred REP licences required to be produced. Since no such valid licences were produced, the goods were ordered to be confiscated and consequential penalties were imposed. (b)     Since th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d a penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs only on M/s. Vijaybhav. Thus it may be seen that looking to the value of the rough diamonds as mentioned above which is Rs. 1,44,39,89,912/-, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs on M/s. Vijaybhav is not even 1% of the value of the rough diamonds. Therefore, I do not find any justification for waiver of the same. In my opinion the entire penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs is required to be deposited by M/s. Vijaybhav. 4. As regards M/s. Deepali Exports, it is seen that the rough diamonds imported on the strength of 28 forged licences valued at Rs. 1,57,62,25,055/- are not available for confiscation. As such the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Crore on Deepali Exports. Again it is seen that the penal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alties have already been imposed on the proprietary concern, I do not see any justification for imposition of penalty on the individual proprietors of the said firms. Therefore, penalty on Shri Rajesh Jain and Gyanchand Jain is required to be dispensed with. It is also seen that a penalty of Rs. 1 Crore has been imposed on Shri Hiralal Jain who is the proprietor of M/s. Vaibhav Exports. Since the penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs has been imposed on the proprietary concern, in my view the penalty of Rs. 1 Crore imposed on the individual proprietor may be dispensed with. Further as regards, the penalty of Rs. 1 Crore imposed on Shri Kamlesh Khicha, proprietor of M/s. Pushpak Impex, I find that since the penalty has been imposed on the proprietary conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ON Shri Krishna Kumar, Member (Judicial) "Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the goods are in the custody of the department, the pre-deposit of penalty is not called for as recorded by the ld. Member (Technical) or the pre-deposit of part of penalty being hardly 1% in the case of M/s. Vijaybhav and M/s. Deepali Exports and approximately 6% in the case of M/s. Vaibhav Exports and approximately 10% in the case of M/s. Pushpak Impex as recorded by Member (J), in view of the order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 39 of 2004 is required to be deposited." Sd/- (Shri S.S. Sekhon) Member (T) Sd/- (Krishna Kumar) Member (J) Date : 20-4-2004 9. [Order per : Jyot....