2018 (7) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case, the relevant portions of the Tribunal's order are reproduced below: "3.For the proper appreciation of the case, the findings of the Commissioner of Customs (Port) in respect of imposition of penalties on the appellants are reproduced below:- "21. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case I find that M/s JVL and M/s ACI entered into a conspiracy to effect the import of the impugned goods at a such lower rate of duty by employing the novel modus operandi, whereby the ownership of the goods would appear to have changed hands to the purported high seas buyer M/s ACI, who, as importer, would qualify for the benefit of the exemption notification, whereas actually ownership would remain in the hands of, the purport....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Noticee No. 9) too had direct involvement in the impugned import in question. 21.2. Therefore it follows that M/s ACI was hand in glove with M/s JVL in the subject illegal/illegitimate import and abetted the subject import which has been held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d), Ill(m) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of above M/s ACI (noticee No. 9) is liable to penal action under Section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as proposed in the show cause notice. 22. As regards the role of M/S Soma Clearing Agents Pvt. Ltd. (noticee No. 10), I find that the said noticee as a regular CHA used to handle the import of the subject oil items of M/s JVL and other importers as well. Therefore, they must have been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port) Nhava-sheva by FO No. A-855-28/16/SMB dated 21.01.2016 as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the appellants, the Tribunal held that as the Settlement Commission had not imposed penalty on the co-noticees and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty. In the present case, I find that the Settlement Commission imposed penalties on the co-noticees and therefore, the imposition of penalty on the appellants is justified. I find that there is no serious attempt on behalf of the appellants to refute the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The appellants have merely cited the case laws. It is apparent on the face of the records, that the appellants were involved in the evasion of Customs duty. Hence, the impositions of pena....