ANTARCTICA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) SHRI N.K. Chowdhury, ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants fairly states that the Appellants are a unit located in the Falta SEZ. They had permission to clear the impugned UNICEF material but the employee of the Company accompanying the vehicle went back from the gate of the Zone and picked up some more goods in the truck for delivery outside which has been detected at the gate leading to these proceedings. He states that the Appellant -Company has no role in this mistake committed by the employee and hence a lenient view is called for. He also states that except for the truck which was provisionally cleared, none of the goods have been provisionally released and in fact these are lying in the custody of the Appellants within the zone itself. As such, he states that the duty demand in respect of these goods is not justified.

(3.) HEARD the ld. SDR who states that the Appellants had no reason to clear the goods in excess of the permission granted and the Appellant -Company cannot put to the blame on the employees as it is stood to benefit by clearing the impugned goods in the domestic area without permission.