TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce with pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras, by common order dated 13.08.2024 in W.P. Nos. 22687 and 22688 of 2003, set aside the dismissal and restored the appeals subject to deposit of Rs.15 lakhs in each case. Upon compliance, the appeals are being heard together on merits for disposal by this common order. 1.2 In Appeal No. C/212/2002 (Exim Silks India Pvt. Ltd.), the subject import concerns Bill of Entry No. 23450 dated 14.05.1996 filed by M/s. Sreesilk Imports "A/c Exim Silks (India) Pvt. Ltd." for clearance of 8133.73 kg (135 bales) declared as Dupion Silk under Notification No. 80/95-Cus. 1.3 In Appeal No. C/211/2002 (Exim Aides), the subject import concerns Bill of Entry No. 41041 dated 19.08.1996 filed by M/s. Sreenidhi Impex "A/c Exim Aides" for clearance of 8028.69 kg (135 bales) declared as Dupion Silk under the same notification. The department alleged that a portion of the consignments consisted of Mulberry Raw Silk and that non-transferable advance licences were misused. Statements under Section 108 were recorded from the partners of Sreesilk Imports and Sreenidhi Impex, Shri R. Sadagopan (connected with b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....importers itself is not established. Finally it was submitted that penalty cannot be sustained in the absence of mens rea. 4.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative supported the findings in the impugned orders and submitted that the appellants cannot escape liability merely because the Bills of Entry were filed by associated firms. It was argued that the consignments were cleared "on account of" the appellants and against advance licences held by them. The end-use bonds and bank guarantees were executed by the appellants, and the clearances under Notification No. 80/95-Cus were granted on the strength of such undertakings. Therefore, the appellants held themselves out as importers within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.2 It was further submitted that the Section 108 statements reveal that the high sea sales arrangements and licence utilisation were not bona fide commercial transactions but were structured to facilitate misuse of non-transferable licences. The irregularities in bank guarantees and the admitted receipt of premium amounts for permitting use of licences indicate active and fraudulent involvement. 5. We have heard the Rival submissions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Silks is recorded in Para 9 as: - "Apart from giving the Advance Licences and signing the high sea sale contract, they were not a party to the imports covered by Bill of Entry No.23450... They had not taken delivery of the goods after clearance." 7.7 We find that similarly, in the case of Exim Aides, the Order-in-Original records that the relevant Bill of Entry was filed by M/s. Sreenidhi Impex "A/c Exim Aides," and that the declaration under Section 46 was subscribed by Sreenidhi Impex. We observe that the investigation notes that Sreenidhi Impex handled negotiation, clearance and delivery of the goods. The Section 108 statements indicate that Sreenidhi Impex arranged clearance under the licences furnished by Exim Aides. 7.8 We therefore note that in the both appeals, the act of filing Bills of Entry, subscribing to declarations and seeking clearance under Section 47 were performed by Sreesilk Imports and Sreenidhi Impex respectively. 7.9 The Respondent, however, contended that the consignments were cleared "on account of" the appellants and against advance licences held by them, and therefore they held themselves out as importers. We observe that mere mention "A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 statements indicate that Sreenidhi Impex handled the description and clearance process. There is no categorical admission by Exim Aides of awareness of misdescription. The evidence establishes furnishing of licences but not participation in description or valuation. 8.5 The respondent controverted this contention, arguing that misdeclaration occurred and the appellants facilitated clearance. We observe that facilitation of use of licence is distinct from making a false declaration. 8.6 We therefore find that misdeclaration, if any, is attributable to the entities that filed and subscribed to the declaration in the Bills of Entry. There is no evidence establishing that either Exim Silks or Exim Aides instructed or knowingly participated in misdescription. 8.7 Accordingly, we hold that misdeclaration under Section 111(m) is not established against either of the appellants. Issue No.3 - Confiscation and Redemption Fine 9.1 We note that the goods in question are admittedly not available for confiscation. The learned Authorised Representative relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 (115) ELT 278 (....