LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-260

V C MOHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR

Decided On October 23, 2007
V.C.MOHAN Appellant
V/S
S.JANAKIRAMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18. 10. 2001 made in W. P. No. 11519 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein against the admission order of settlement commission dated 15. 2. 2001 on an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for settlement of case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the appellant herein filed bill of entry NO. 235337 dated 19. 7. 2000 in the name of one M/s. Goutham Enterprises for clearance of 300 numbers of Acer CD ROM drive, 50 X, through clearing house agent M/s. Sanjay Forwarders Private Limited. The declared value was Rs. 4,71,450/- (CIF ). On the same day i. e. , on 19. 7. 2000, M/s. Goutham Enterprises sent a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB Air Cargo Complex, Chennai stating that they have received a cargo arrival notice for ACER CD ROM drive, 50x and they had not placed any order for supply of the same.

(3.) ON 24. 7. 2000, the appellant Managing Director of Moonstar Automation Private Limited claimed the goods. The goods were examined in the presence of the appellant and one Shanthilal of Goutham Enterprises and two independent witnesses. The consignment found to contain 246 Nos. of Acer 50x CD ROM drive, 736 Nos. of Cellular mobile phones with chargers and battery back, 35 Nos. of Ear phones and 100 Nos. of plastic flip top and 6 Nos. of hard disc drive for a total CIF value of Rs. 43,56,189/ -. Since the description and the value of the goods did not tally with the bill of entry, the consignment was seized on 24. 7. 2000 under a mahazar. The SIIB of the Customs House, Chennai conducted further investigation by recording statements from the appellant, clearing house agent, the steamer agent and one S. Janakiraman. After gathering such information on 19. 9. 2000, the first respondent issued a show cause notices to the appellant calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why: