SHREE SHILPA INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RAIGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed bill of entry. It was subsequently found that the goods were undervalued. Pursuant to that a show cause notice was issued and for some other reasons which the revenue found in the course of investigation relating to one M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. The Appellants herein filed their reply. In the show cause notice it was set out that M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd., were not only importing consignments in their own name but also in the name of other companies and two such consignments were imported in the name of the appellant herein. The show cause notice further set out that M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd., had paid commission at the rate of 4% to the appellants herein for using their name for the purpose of importing the two consignments. It is not necessary to set out the various other contents of the said show cause notice. In the reply dated 18th September, 1996 the stand of the appellant was that they had never mis-declared the value of the imported goods. Their further submission was that the Invoice No. 92269A had been found at the business centre of M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. In Para 10 it was specifically set out as under :

(2.) The Appellant being aggrieved along with Shri Hitesh R. Mehta preferred an Appeal before the CESTAT. The learned Tribunal after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant has noted in Para 5 of its order that the appellants were having knowledge about the mis-declaration of the value. Having so observed the appeal of the appellant in so far as duty is concerned was not interfered with.

(3.) Against that order the present Appeal. At the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the appellant learned Counsel submits that the appellants were not the owners of the goods and that the owners of the goods in fact were M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that on a reading of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 it would be clear that once the owners are known no duty could have been imposed on the appellant herein. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India V/s. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1991 56 ELT 739.