TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Sec. 111(d), confiscating dyes under seizure under Sec. 111(d) with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in addition to duty and imposing penalties under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 of Rs. 10 lakhs on Motilal & Bros. Rs. 5 lakhs on S. Baranwal of Motilal & Bros. and Rs. One lakh each on Vasant Ajmera, partner of Mayur Chemicals who disposed of 3 consignments imported duty free and Shri Sunil Jethanand Shah, partner of Mayur Chemicals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on information regarding misuse of Import-Export Passbook and diversion of duty free imported materials by sale in the local market and trafficking of such Passbook through brokers, officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and depositing the goods in his godown in Samuel Street and then the goods were further sold in retail market from his godown. He also stated that he obtained transport receipts for goods cleared by him showing dispatch of goods from Aryavrat Parivahen, even though goods were actually sold in the local market. Brijendra Arya of Aryavrat Parivahan confirmed that he had prepared bogus lorry receipts for dispatch to the importers for a consideration of 5% of freight charges. Based on the above, show cause notice dated 3-6-94 was issued to the appellants and others proposing recovery of duty. Confiscation and penal action. An addendum to the show cause notice was issued on 26-10-1995 proposing confiscation of a consignment of dyes of Samron B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signments, Prabhudas Ganatra and Vikram Garodia received 4 consignments pursuant to their paying premium and the cif value of the goods to Shri Surendra Baranwal. The details of these 4 consignments are as under :- Sr. No. Item Qty B/E No. 1. Dyes Rubine 1000 kgs 1590 5-7-90 2. Dyes Blue RX 1350 kgs 1663 29-7-90 3. Sulphur Bradux 2000 kgs 1908 28-8-90 4. Dyes Chrome Blue 2000 kgs 1908 28-8-90 4. Shri Mahindra Shrimankar of Eagle Transport Services who had cleared these consignments from Customs has corroborated the admission of Prabhudas Ganatra and Vikram Garodia that the goods were delivered to them after clearance. He has also corroborated their statements that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnments were also transported to their factory by M/s. Jaishree Transport but the CHA has stated that he does not know any owner/director or representative of the importer and that he had cleared these goods at the instance of one Shivkumar and delivered the goods to him and the CHA's clearing charges were paid in cash by Shivkumar. The importer has not produced any transport receipts or lorry receipts to establish that these consignments were actually transported to their factory. They have not produced any ^'N' form to prove the movement of the goods to their factory at Varanasi. In respect of P.V.A. and Rangolite 'C', Shri Vasant Ajmera and Shri Sunil Jethanand Shah partners of M/s. Mayur Chemicals had corroborated the statements of Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsignment. 'N' the light of this evidence, we hold that these consignments are also not entitled to the benefit of duty free import and are liable to duty. 6. In respect of consignment of P.V.A., Marlophan Sodium Formaldehyde Sulphoxilate and Dyes, the importer submitted xerox copy of Form 31 but no 'N' form. They did not produce any lorry receipt nor offered any explanation as to the allegation where the goods were stored for 3 to 5 months between the date of their clearance and the date of so called transport to their factory. In the case of consignment of dyes, the Form 31 does not even indicate the name of the consignor. In view of the above, the contention of the importer that these goods were transported to their factory and used ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods were sold in the local market contrary to the condition of duty free import. The importer's reliance upon the order dated 9-10-1995 in the case of Mobarak Ali Khan & Sons, order dated 24-10-1995 in the case of Tiwari Carpets Palace and order dated 28-5-1996 in the case of A.K. Carpets of the Commissioner on identical set of evidence that the case of diversion has not been made out by the Revenue, and that such orders have become final as they have not been reviewed, does not advance their case as, such orders are not binding upon the Tribunal which is free to come to its independent conclusion. Their grievance that cross-examination of persons whose statements were recorded was not allowed and that this has resulted in contravent....