TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of penalty, we dispose off both by this common order. 2. The appellants were the Managing Director and General Manager respectively of M/s Tangerine Informatique Ltd which was charged with having imported goods, declared as 'integrated circuit chips' of various specifications, against 12 bills of entry in May 1997 that, upon taking up for examination, was found to contain some pieces that were dummy, fake or overvalued. The importer, though not in appeal, was a unit established in the SEEPZ, an Export Processing Zone operating under the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India, and had been permitted by the competent authority to trade and repack imported goods. The offending goods were claimed to have been shipped by mistake; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rew our attention to the proceedings initiated against the Managing Director by Enforcement Directorate that was dropped on the basis of certain circumstantial references. He places reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Guru Ispat Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta [2003 (151) ELT 384 (Tri-Kolkata)] and in HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2003 (158) ELT 349 (Tri-Del)]. 5. Learned Authorised Representative contends that, on the basis of the findings of the adjudicating authority and the implied admission of offence by the importer, all that remained in the appeal was to ascertain the role of the appellants herein. According to him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in Pine Chemical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for denial of re-export as well as scope for such permission of re-export by us. 7. We are, therefore, limited to an ascertainment of the role of the two appellants. The goods were imported by a unit operating under a special scheme framed to showcase best practices and while enabling industrial growth in circumstances of minimal intervention. The 'double lock bond' regulated the deployment of imported goods in the operations of the unit and ensured that such privileged goods was utilized exclusively for the intended purpose. In the present instance, it is not anybody's case that the goods have been diverted or intended to be; on the contrary, it would appear that the claim of the appellants of lack of motive was discarded on the find....