TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R Per Mathew John: The main Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The second Appellant is a Director of the main Appellant company. They were importing raw materials like polyester yarn, polyester fabrics, woollen yarn, synthetic waste, acrylic fibre and acrylic tow without payment of duty under Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 subject to the undertaking that the condition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice was issued demanding customs duty to the tune of Rs.2,53,07,032/- on the goods covered by the said 26 Bills of Entry along with applicable interest. There was a proposal to hold that the goods imported by the said Bills of Entry are liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and to impose penalty under Section 114A and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graph 1.5 of the order, Revenue had specific information regarding selling/diverting of duty free imported raw material by the Appellants in the open market. There is no other evidence which would show that the Bills of Entry were actually filed by the Appellant. Rest of the allegation is listed on the presumption that these Bills of Entry were actually filed by the Appellant. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal documents from the sellers. According to the Appellant, the deal was not finalised and they had not paid any amount for the said goods to the actual sellers. According to the Appellant, the goods were actually cleared by the parties who are supposed to have sold the goods on high seas by filing Bills of Entry using the name of the Appellant. The case record does not show a....