2025 (7) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Rs.3,36,10,6140/- by misusing the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The goods were imported duty-free and were diverted into local market. The duty forgone for the imports worked out to Rs.1,03,78,016/-. Intelligence received revealed that the importer has been diverting the duty-free raw silk yarn imported under Advance Authorisation Scheme into the local market and also giving false declaration regarding their factory and supporting manufacturers who do not have any manufacturing facility to process the goods. The DRI intercepted the goods and in continuation of the investigation, searches were conducted at various places of related parties. It appeared that the importer had handed over licenses to the High Sea Sellers / CHAs to import the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tponing the hearing once again. He further stated that the impugned order does not appear to be legal and proper as it relates to the non-imposition of mandatory penalty in terms of section 114A of CA 1962, even after total duty has been confirmed under section 28(8) of CA 1962. He took support of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs Rajasthan Weaving and Spinning Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3 SC] and Akash Fabrics Vs Commr. of C. Ex. Daman, Vapi [2009 (241) ELT 456 (Tri-Ahmd) and prayed that the appeal be allowed. 4. We have gone through the appeal and have heard the parties to the dispute. The only issue to be decided is regarding the non-imposition of penalty in the impugned order under section 114A of the CA 1962 on the impor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....toms Act, 1962 as payable jointly or severally by Shri Kalpesh Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Kalp Impex and Shri Ramanandh Surekha, Proprietor of M/s. Goyal Impex. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) imposed on each on a) Shri Kalpesh Patel, Proprietor of M/s.Kalp Impex and b) Shri Ramanandh Surekha, Proprietor of M/s. Goyal Enterprise under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. As in my view, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed under sec. 112(a) would meet the ends of justice, I refrain from imposing any penalty under sec. 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the aforesaid persons. (emphasis added) 6. Section 114A of the CA 1962 is extracted below for ease of reference. Penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the case may be, shall be taken into account : Provided also that in a case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the interest payable thereon under section 28AA, and twenty-five per cent of the consequential increase in penalty have also been paid within thirty days of the communication of the order by which such increase in the duty or interest takes effect : Provided also that where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall be levied under section 11....