2015 (11) TMI 942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts of the case relate to import of "Mulberry Raw Silk" in the guise of "Duppion Silk" and also misuse of DEEC scheme by the importers. The adjudicating authority in his orders dt. 27.1.2002 and 8.2.2002 confirmed the demand and ordered for confiscation of the goods and also imposed penalty on importer and also on various co-noticees and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant in each appeal under Section 112(a) as well as under 112(b) of the Customs Act. I find that there are no appeals filed by other importers and co-noticees. Therefore, this order is confined only to the present appeals filed by appellant against imposition of penalty. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that appellant was working....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... New Delhi 1997 (94) ELT 9 (SC) (ii) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. Vs CCE 1996 (88) ELT 641 (SC)  (iii) UOI Vs Kanunga Industries AIR 1990 (SC) 2190  (iv) State of Kerala Vs M.M. Mahew & Another AIR 1978 (SC) 1571  (v) Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa 1978 ELT (J 159).  (vi) Trilok chand Jain Vs State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666  (vii) Shri Ram Vs The State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R for the Revenue reiterated the findings and submits that bank guarantee is nothing but cash payment for clearances for duty free goods under DEEC. Importers have imported the goods by execution of bank guarantee to clear the goods under DEEC licence and the goods were diverted. She submits th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bangalore and with Shri R. Sadagopan, Proprietor of M/s.Exim Aides, Bangalore, and abetted the acts of omission and commission that had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) (m) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 27.6 Shri A. Vaiyapur, the then Branch Manager N.R. Road, Branch, Bank of Madura Ltd., Bangalore is hereby called upon to Show Cause to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetting the acts of omission and commission that had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962." As seen from the allegations made in SCN as well as in the impugn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of banking regulations not a violation under the Customs Act. I find from that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), wherein it is clearly held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided to commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107 of Cr.PC. Therefore, in the present case, there is no iota of evidence brought out for invoking provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. I also find one of the SCNs dt. 17.6.98 proposed for penalty under Section 112(a) whereas the impugned order dt. 8.2....