KOTHARI FILAMENTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated April 19, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, Kolkata ("CEGAT") by which the said tribunal has affirmed the order of the Commissioner imposing redemption fine and personal penalty upon the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed for direction upon respondent No. 1 to refund a sum of rupees thirty lakh which has been paid by the petitioners by way of redemption fine on the imported goods and also for refund of rupees five lakh paid by the petitioner No. 1 as the personal penalty and a further sum of rupees one lakh paid by petitioner No. 2 as personal penalty on him.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ application may be summarised thus: The petitioners are importers of various items including lithophone. On the basis of the petitioners' order for import which was declared by the petitioners to be 21.5 MT of lithophone, the said amount of materials arrived at the port. Upon arrival of the goods, the petitioners filed a bill of entry dated June 3, 1999 for home consumption making the selfsame declaration. However, the Customs Authorities had some doubt in their mind and after investigation it was detected that out of the said declared amount of 21.5 MT of lithophone, there were actually 10 MT of tetracycline, a prohibited item and 11.5 MT of lithophone. Ultimately, a notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 asking the petitioners to show cause why the said consignment valued at Rs. 63,32,018.60p. should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and why the importers and their agent should not be penalised under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the said Act. The petitioners were further asked to show cause why the attempted evasion of duty amounting to Rs. 38,16,729.40p. resulting from wilful mis-declaration of the imported goods should not be paid by them along with interest and why the imported prohibited goods viz. tetracycline should not be confiscated under Section 14 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the persons concerned should not be liable for punishment under Section 13 of the said Act.

(3.) The petitioners gave reply to show cause notice and the defences taken by the petitioners were as follows: