2011 (2) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant Per: P.G. Chacko     This appeal was filed by the department against the Commissioner's order wherein no penalty was imposed on the respondent.  The appellant is represented by the learned SDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We are taking up this old appeal for final disposal. 2. In the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vidence further reveals that M/s. Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai were assigned the additional job of getting the goods re-exported to the sender through M/s. Schenkers International, Mumbai.  It cannot be said that they were concerned actually with the import of the goods and therefore, M/s. Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai are not liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the consignee and contained an advice to 'hold this shipment until further instructions'. It is further submitted that the respondent continued to pay the Port Trust charges in respect of the shipment upto August 1997 to prevent the goods from being auctioned.  It is submitted that the respondent was aware of the fact that the goods were shipped unauthorisedly to India.  In the circums....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent until further instructions figured just below this column. It is, therefore, not ascertainable as to whether such instruction/advice was addressed to the respondent or to Asia World Exports.  Neither the memorandum of appeal nor the SDR's submissions throw any light on this aspect. The appellant has also claimed that the respondent paid Port Trust charges upto August 1997 to prevent the g....