TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....90, dated May 24, 1988 of synthetic rags and serviceable garments absolutely under Sections 111(d), 111(f), 111(i), 111(l), 111(m), 111(e) as well as under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and had also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Act. 2.On May 24, 1988 M/s. Arbindo Woollen Mills filed a Bill of Entry for clearance at Inland Container Depot (ICD) Customs, Paragati Maidan, New Delhi. Along with the said Bill of Entry the said M/s. Abrindo Mills gave a declaration for importing the goods under open general licence saying that they are registered with the authorities in Kanpur as a small scale industry and that their registration has not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit and Shri Sanjeev Kumar is his front man and M/s. Garg Woollen Mills is the beneficiaries in these imports. The non-appearance of Shri Ajay Garg, Director of M/s. Garg Woollen Mills before the DRI authorities inspite of summons also indicates guilt on his part. Similarly the appearance of Shri S.P. Goyal before the DRI officials as late as 10-10-1988 in pursuance to the directions given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on his anticipatory bail application dated 6-9-1988 and that too in presence of his Advocate is also indicative of his involvement in these nefarious activities. 3.On appeal the Tribunal has agreed with the said finding recorded by the Additional Collector. The Tribunal has found that the permission for transf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the appellant does not apply to the case of S.P. Goyal when the Tribunal has found that evidence was not sufficient for imposition of penalty against him. Since the Tribunal has itself held that the case of the appellant has to be distinguished from that of S.P. Goyal, the order of Tribunal dated November 24, 1988 (sic) cannot lend any assistance to the case of the appellant. 5.Another contention that was urged by Shri Mahabir Singh was that the Additional Collector, as also the Tribunal, have failed to take into consideration the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Act which prescribes that whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by the Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exp....