SUSHIL KUMAR KANODIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL Nos. C/336/2000 and C/71/01 have been filed against the Order -in -Original No. 3/2000 dt. 25 -1 -2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Appeal No. C/71/2001 has been filed by the Revenue seeking to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the importer who had rendered the raw mulberry silk imported by it liable for confiscation and in respect of which the Commissioner had demanded duty of about Rs. 36.5 lakhs along with interest. The Appeal No. C/336/2000 seeks to vacate the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri Sushil Kumar Kanodia in the impugned order.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on receipt of intelligence to the effect that M/s. Piccadilly Tradisons (hereinafter referred to as TT'), Hyderabad had diverted raw silk imported under DEEC Scheme in the domestic market without fulfilling export obligation investigation was initiated into the imports made by FT. Statements were recorded from Shri Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah, Proprietor of PT, Shri Madhusudan Jhanwar, Partner of M/s. Gokul Textile Corporation, Shri S.K. Kanodia, a Consultant and Shri P.K. Kanodia, his son. In the statement dated 10 -1 -96, Mr. Chandravadan Natwarlal Shah had stated that he had obtained advance licence on the advice of Mr. S.K. Kanodia, who had master minded diversion of imported duty free raw silk during May to September, 1995 and had given him Rs. 15 lakhs in cash. Shri S.K. Kanodia had made payments to the suppliers of silk abroad. Shri S.K. Kanodia was aware of the customs law and had engaged in the transactions for pecuniary gain. Shri Madhusudan Jhanwar, partner of M/s. Gokul Textile Corporation, Bangalore vide his statement dated 11 -1 -96 had stated that he had come to know Shri S.K. Kanodia in the year 1993 when he had introduced himself as a Consultant in matters of imports and exports.

(3.) IN his statement dated 11 -1 -1996 Shri S.K. Kanodia had denied his involvement or knowledge of diversion of raw silk imported by PT. Shri Pradeep Kumar Kanodia, in his statement dated 23 -9 -1996 had stated that he was unaware of the transactions of PT and whatever transactions he had carried out were at the behest of his father Shri S.K. Kanodia.