2005 (9) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der, the Commissioner has demanded a duty of Rs. 3,72,812/- under Section 28 read with Section 72 of the Customs Act from the first appellant i.e. M/s. Next Fashion Creations. Further, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act. A penalties of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively have been imposed on the second, third and fourth appellant under Section 112A of the Customs Act. All these appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order. 3. Smt. Rukmani Menon, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the first two appellants. Shri Kiran Javali, the learned Sr. Advocate appeared for the third appellant and Shri Keshava lyengar, the learned Advocate appeared for the fourt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lia stated that the material had been supplied free of cost based on the order placed by the customer M/s. Kohler & Krenzer GmbH of Germany, directly to them to use for particular styles. All the materials were utilized and exported to Germany. He gave the details of the Shipping Bills to the Customs. Statement of Shri H. Bhaskar was also taken. The statement revealed that Shri Bhaskar, Inspector (the fourth appellant), with the connivance of the employees of M/s. MNS Exports Pvt. Ltd., would get the imported goods cleared free of duty and then would deliver the same to Shri Vikram Jain (the third appellant). Shri Vikram Jain would re-cycle the goods and export the same in fulfilment of export obligation for the DEEC licence obtained from D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; The allegations against the appellants are totally false and baseless as there is no connection whatsoever between Shri Vikram Jain, the appellant company or their MD. (ii)     Just because they had received the lining fabric free of cost was not a factor relevant in order to dis-entitle the eligibility of the appellant to benefit of Notification No. 53/97. (iii)    The material imported by the appellant was lining fabric which was used by them in garments and were exported either to M/s. Kohler & Krenzer or M/s. Milestones Sportwear. (iv)    There had been no diversion of imported material to Vikram Jain with whom they had no connection at all. (v)     Shri....