TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, New York filed the bill of entry No. 022484 dated 31.07.2000 and cleared 32 numbers of used printing mini-offset machines from M/s. Indev CFS (later re-named as M/s. Gateway Distriparks (South) Pvt. Ltd.), which were originally imported in the name of M/s. Gold Line Offset Printers. At the time of filing of bill of entry No. 022484 dated 31.07.2000 by M/s. Orjay Process Pvt. Ltd. and clearance of the goods from Indev CFS vide the said bill of entry, the goods had been seized by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI) and a show cause notice had been issued by DRI to the original importer wherein inter-alia the original importer was called upon to show cause why i) the 32 Nos. second hand printing machines valued at Rs. 32 Lakhs (Market Value) and Rs. 12.80 Lakhs (Appraised value) seized under a Mahazar dated 14.10.1999 and deposited with Indev CFS which were disowned by the original importer should not be confiscated under Section111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (ii) penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be taken against the proprietor of the importing firm in as much as he has intentionally and deliberately used t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the fax message sent by the Disposal unit on 14.03.2002 to the Custodian of the Cargo. iv. the new fact of suppression came to light in the year 2002 and hence, it has got nothing to do with the earlier Order-in-Original passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs. v. the delay in passing the adjudication order in 2012 for the show cause notice issued in 2005 was due to administrative and time adjustment factor between the various parties involved in the case and the adjudicating authority. vi. the second consignee connived with the steamer agent (the Second Appellant herein) in amending the import manifest. vii. the steamer agent (the Second Appellant herein) successfully got the consignee name changed by suppressing the fact that the goods were liable for confiscation. viii. the permission for clearance which was obtained by suppressing fact cannot be said to be a legal one. 7. The four appellants have preferred the present appeals assailing the impugned order. All the appeals are takenup together as they arise out of a common order-inappeal. 8.1 The Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Aditya Sundar appeared and argued for the appellants and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olicy by floating 23 companies. These imports were done through several importers, CHAs and consignors and the imports were made in the names of his friends and relatives. Hence the Appellants not being part of any of the said violations cannot be penalized along with the said violator on equal footing as the king pin was penalized for the same amount under the subject proceedings. In fact, the CEGAT order confirms the bonafide nature of the Appellants. 8.6 He submitted that Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked when "duty is sought to be evaded" but there is no evasion of duty as the same has been paid by the consignee by filing bill of entry and accepted by Customs. Therefore, Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked on the Appellants. 9.1 Per contra the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, for the department reiterated and supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that from the chronological dates and events of the whole issue given in the findings of the impugned order it is clear that all the appellants as the Custodian of the cargo or the Steamer agents or their employees were having the prior knowledge t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the appellant to sell the same and therefore the fact that same had not been actually used in terms of the policy has established the charge and goods have become liable for confiscation. 11. In so far as the quantum of RF, we notice that in respect of 389 nos. of imported second-hand printing machines, the assessable value has been arrived at Rs. 2,93,74,056/- and the redemption fine imposed is less than 10% of the amount i.e. Rs. 25 lakhs. The Larger Bench in the case of Harpreet International - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 529 has upheld the imposition of 85% of the value as redemption fine. Therefore, the quantum of fine being only 10% of the total value, it cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances that the fine imposed is on the higher side requiring it to be reduced. Likewise, 71 nos. of second-hand printing machines under seizure have been valued at Rs. 30,92,439/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs is less than 10% of the value of the goods. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the quantum of the RF and confirm the same. As regards penalty, the offence committed by R. Janardhanan is very serious and he has done it with clear intention to ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... para 33 of the impugned order-in-original No. 18695/2012 dated 31.03.2012 that the seized goods were handed over to M/s. Indev CFS, the custodian of the goods in this case. In the same para, he has held that the appellants have released the seized goods to M/s. Orrjay Process in violation of Section 45(2) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under: "The Custodian shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer". The proper officer for the release of the seized goods in this case is the seizing authority i.e., DRI. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Manager (Operations) of M/s. Indev CFS has admitted to have received the seized goods, entered the same in the computer system of M/s. Indev CFS and also instructed his staff, in writing, not to release the container. This proves that the appellants were well aware that in terms of Section 45(2) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, seized goods handed over to the Custodian should not be removed from the customs area or otherwise deal without the permission of the proper officer for release of the ....