2006 (12) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wledge of the custodian of the goods that the goods are in violation of import of law is pre-requisite for imposition of Redemption fine?" 2. A show cause notice was issued requiring the respondents to show cause why action be not taken against them for purchasing and dealing in any manner with the goods which is liable to penal action under Section 111 of the Act. 3. After considering the stand of the respondents, the Adjudicating Officer passed the following order :- "I order confiscation of the machines appearing at Sr. Nos. 7, 8, 16, 28 and 29 of annexure to the show cause notice seized from the factory premises of the following parties under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in exercise of the power....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 41994 Rohit Knittings 2,50,000/- 80,000/- 4. -do- 20064 Arora Knittings 2,50,000/- 80,000/- The seizures of seventeen knitting machines valued at Rs. 55,50,000/- seized from the premises of M/s. Kiwi Knitters, M/s. S.P. Shawls, M/s. New Quality, Khatta of Kuldip Suri, Khatta taken on rent by Venus Industries, M/s. Nemo Fabrics, M/s. Ruby Knitters and Khatta of Smt. Parvati Devi (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30 and 31 of the annexure to the show cause notice) are ordered to be vacated. I impose a personal penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh only) on Sh. Kamal Kapoor and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh only) on Sh. Krishan Kapoor under Sections 112(a) an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- 2002, permitting import of machines only for their own use, disposal thereof without prior permission of the DGFT, is in violation of the terms of import. The Tribunal found the quantum of penalty as regards respondents No. 1 and 2 to be excessive and accordingly, reduced the same. As regards, respondents No. 3 to 9, herein, who were appellant No. 3 to 9 before the Tribunal, it was held that they were bona fide purchasers of the machines without knowing ineligibility of the seller and in absence of any mens rea no penalty qua them. 6. Order of penalty qua M/s. Ambaji textiles and M/s. Venus Industries has been upheld by the Tribunal. 7. No question arises qua respondents No. 1 and 2, against whom, penalty has only been reduced in th....