2017 (9) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... he had no reason to believe that goods were liable for confiscation ? (B) Whether the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was correct without examining mean rea in the facts of the present case?" 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. Appellant was the Executive Director and an employee of one M/s. Sheshanka Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Company'). The Company imported 666.750 MT of HDPE granules valued at Rs. 71.86 lakhs (rounded off) under three separate bills of entry filed in the month of March, 1990 at Kandla port. The company had imported such goods claiming benefit of exemption notification without payment of duty on the ground that the same would be utilized for manufacturing an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1962. (2) customs duty amounting to Rs. 89,61,999.00 (BCD Rs. 20,01,750.35; Addl. Rs. 32,33,757.75 and CVD Rs. 37,28,490.90) payable on the goods imported should not be demanded under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and interest payable @ 20% per annum under section 28 AB of Customs Act, 1962. (3) penalty under section 112(a) and (b) and 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them. S/Shri R.N.Shetty and V.V.Kamnath are also hereby called upon to show cause as to why penalty under section 112(a)(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed upon them for suppression of facts, wilful wrong statement and fabricating the statutory documents." 6. After completing the proceedings, the adjudi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner. We find that during the course of the adjudicating proceedings, the department had brought on record voluminous material linking the appellant with the diversion of goods in the local market. The adjudicating authority has referred to the statements of Shri Srinivas Naik wholetime director of the company as well as Shri Vinayak Gavadi, Manager (Administration). In their statements, they had highlighted that the appellant was incharge of the day to day affairs of the company which was being carried out with the knowledge of Shri R.N.Shetty. The adjudicating authority had also referred to the statement of the appellant himself recorded on 03.07.1997 in which, he had admitted that the application for advance licenses for import of the go....