2007 (4) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ltant, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  This appeal filed by the department is for imposition of penalty on the respondents. The respondents had imported two second-hand machines and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance thereof on 12-5-1999. The machines were assessed to duty on the basis of documents produced by them. As per the documents, the goods were shi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant's premises and launched investigations. A statement was recorded from the Director of the respondent company, who acknowledged that the goods had actually been shipped on 10-4-1999. He, however, pleaded innocence as regards the date of shipment shown in the Bill of Lading. In the face of the department's proposal to confiscate the machines and to impose penalty on the importer, the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts. According to the appellant, the Commissioner ought to have imposed appropriate penalty either under Section 112(a) or under Section 114A of the Act. Learned SDR has reiterated this plea. Learned Consultant for the respondents has relied on certain findings of this Bench recorded in  Final Order No. 151/2005 = 2005 (185) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal) ibid. In that final order, we had recorded a su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is to impose penalty on the respondents either under Section 112(a) or under Section 114A of the Customs Act. A penalty under Section 112(a) is, of course, relatable to liability of the goods for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. But, for imposing such penalty on the importer of the goods, there must be a finding that he, by his omission or commission, rendered the goods liable for confis....