BRIJ MOHAN SOOD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Sh. Devan Parikh, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri D.S. Negi, SDR appearing for the Revenue at length. The challenge in the present appeal is to confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 32,33,073/ - in respect of imported dyes on the allegations and findings of mis -declaration of quantity and value of the same and personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed upon the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act.

(2.) AS per facts on record, two bills of entries No. 4315 dated 30 -7 -1993 and No. 3154 dated 7 -6 -1993 were filed for clearance of declared goods as Sulphur dyes at the declared value of US$ 1.70 per kg. The first bill of entry filed on 7 -6 -1996 was assessed and goods cleared. However, investigations were started at the time of clearance of the goods covered by the second bill of entry No. 4315 dated 30 -7 -1993. It may be noted here that the said goods were subsequently abandoned by the importer and such claim stand accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and the goods stand absolutely confiscated. There is no challenge to the order of absolute confiscation of the said goods. However, based upon the investigations conducted in respect of the second bill of entry, allegations were made in respect of the first bill of entry as regards under -valuation of the goods.

(3.) THE appellants appearing before us have strongly contested that the appellant herein Shri Brij Mohan Sood was not the actual importer but has simply lent his name to a firm owned by Sh. Ramakant Kedia and Shri Rajnikant Kedia at the instance of Sh. Dilip Shah, for whom he has earlier worked and helped in clearance of imported goods. By drawing out attention to the investigations conducted by the Revenue and as revealed in the impugned order, he submits that the bank account was opened by Sh. Ramakant, import documents were received by them and the cash was handed over by them for payment of duty, all are reflective of the fact that the appellant herein was not the actual importer. He has drawn our attention to various decisions wherein the goods imported on behalf of MMTC as canalizing agency were held not to be imported by the person who presented and filed bill of entry but by the owner.