2016 (10) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 29/2003/CA/CC/RJM dated 29.3.2004. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-  on the appellant under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, for abetment. 4. I find from the records that the adjudicating authority in the second round of litigation has held against the appellant on the groun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f different CHAs and conducting the business of clearance of goods imported in the names of M/s. India Carpet Exports and M/s. Mamta Carpets, Varanasi, U.P. 2. It appears that pursuant to certain intelligence, the officers of D.R.I., Mumbai conducted enquiry and issued Show Cause Notices to the importers and one Mr. Anil Chopra and the appellant herein. The allegations in the Show Cause Notices w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....could not have been sent to Bhiwandi and that too on instructions of Anil Chopra. The appellant has therefore been imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 having been found to have consciously aided and abetted evasion of duty. 3. After hearing both sides, and considering the materials, it is found : (a)    The liability of a CHA as regards the goods which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  The appellant herein is not found to be having conscious knowledge that the DEEC licence holder could not have diverted the goods from Bhiwandi. The finding in that respect is presumption/assumption on the date diversion took place and that such diversions were in fact sales or transfer of ownership or otherwise, which was not permissible to the DEEC licence holder importers could not be in....