2017 (6) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial only for manufacture of 7604.864 MTs of stainless steel articles for export. 2. On the basis of specific intelligence that the said imported goods were being diverted in the local market, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations. At the time of DRI investigation, the export obligation period has been completed and only 103.679 MTs stainless steel vessel had been exported by the respondent. No application for extension of the Export Obligation period had been sought by the respondent. As such, a balance quantity of 7267.769 MTs of stainless steel sheets/coils should have been available with the respondent in the factory premises. However, only 44.254 MTs of such imported goods were found in the factory prem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f penalties on the importer and penalty on other persons was also proposed. Adjudicating authority vide impugned order dated 19.09.2007, confirmed the demand of differential duty along with interest. 8816,134 MTs of allegedly diverted/sold imported goods were confiscated, and redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- was imposed under Section 125 ibid. Penalty of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- on the importer and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the importer Shri V. Subramaniyam, Managing Director of the respondent importer was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the adjudicating authority did not hold 627.192 MTs of goods under seizure at M/s. Massey Godown as liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) ibid. He also refrained from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR further contends that the adjudicating authority has been remiss in not imposing penalties on any of the 22 other noticees, who were high seas sellers and in respect of whom investigation has established that the goods which have been diverted by the respondent herein has actually been re-sold/cleared by the said persons. 5. None appeared for the respondent. 6 It is seen that the respondent has not been represented either in person or through their authorized representatives in earlier occasions also viz., 3.1.2017, 25.01.2017. It therefore appears that the respondent is not interested in contesting the appeal, although notices have been issued to them more than once. However, the appeal is of 2007 vintage, and more than ten years h....