2012 (6) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of appeal is filed which was dismissed by our order dt.19.08.2011 for non-prosecution.   2. After hearing both sides for some time on the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal, we find that the appellant had justified the reasons for non-appearance on 19.08.2011. Accordingly, we recall our final order dt.19.08.11 and restore the appeal to its original number. Since the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n them. The appellant contested the Show Cause Notice before adjudicating authority and adjudicating authority did not accept the contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed the enhancement of the value of the consignment and imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the appellant, under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.   4. Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that there is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs of adjudicating authority for imposition of penalty on the current appellant. It is his submission as per the provisions of Section 2(26) of Customs Act, 1962, the term importer directly apply to the person appellant herein who is the owner or a person holding himself to be an importer. It is his submission that the ownership of the goods is not the sole criteria so far as the liability of an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L for selling these goods to WTPL, we find that it was in respect of recovery of amount which has been advanced by them to TIL. It is also undisputed that M/s TIL had found another buyer viz. WTPL and had filed revised IGM and also sought permission of the authorities for change in the name of Bill of Lading. It is also on record that M/s TIL had sought the permission for re-export of the goods as....