1985 (5) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alt with and disposed of as an appeal. 2. The appellant is a dealer in silver and scrutiny of the appellants accounts by the authorities revealed contravention of provisions Rule 4(1) to (5) of Specified Goods (Prevention of Illegal Export) Rules, 1969 and consequently as the appellant was found to have not complied with the provisions of Section 11L of the Customs Act, 1962, proceedings were instituted against the appellant as per law which ultimately culminated in the impugned order now appealed against. 3. In respect of sale of total quantity of 1496.298 kgs. of silver effected by the appellant between 22-11-1979 to 16-4-1980, precise particulars of the persons to whom the appellant sold were not available in the accounts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the submission of the appellant with reference to the 'proper Officer' is not relevant. The J.D.R. further submitted that even though the appellant has sold silver on various dates, since scrutiny of the accounts took place on a particular date, viz. 3rd May, 1980, different show cause notices need not be issued. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. Under Section 11M of the Act in respect of specified goods, such as silver as in this case, every person who sells the same, shall obtain on his copy of the sale or transfer voucher the signature and full postal address of the person to whom such sale or transfer is made and shall also take such other reasonable steps as may be specified by rules to satisfy himself....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duary penal clause in Section 117 of the Act will not be applicable. I, therefore, reject this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 10. Regarding the contention of the appellant that impugned order would stand vitiated by reason fact that the enquiry was not conducted by the 'proper Officer' within the meaning of Section 11M read with Section 2(34) of the Act, I do not find any substance in this submission either. This is a case where as rightly contended by J.D.R. the adjudication order had been passed by the Additional Collector. When the adjudicating proceedings had been conducted by the Additional Collector himself, the plea that no "proper Officer" conducted the enquiry is totally devoid of any substance. The J.....