SANJAY NOPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals relate to the import of raw mulberry silk. The appellants have been imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for their alleged roles in the import. The impugned goods were under negative list for imports and were claimed for duty free import under DEEC scheme. The imports were in the name of M/s. Kandan fashions and M/s. Dhandapani Textiles. The appellants allegedly facilitated the imports. The finding in respect of both the imports with regard to the appellants is similar and the same may be re -produced below:

(2.) LEARNED Counsels representing the appellants submitted that the appellants were not the importers of the goods, nor had they claimed DEEC clearances in respect of the goods. The charge against them was that they had facilitated the setting up of certain firms for the import of the goods. They submitted that this allegation could not bring them within the ambit of Section 112 as that Section relates to any person who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act. In the instant case, having not filed the Bill of Entry or claimed clearance of goods under DEEC scheme, they had in no way done any act or omitted to do any act under the Customs Act. They also submitted that the appellants were traders and their role in the imports were only in that capacity and this could not be construed as abetting the illegal import. They further pointed out that the findings themselves are not conclusive inasmuch as they are only in the nature of presumptions. This is clear from the use of the word "perhaps" while dealing with their activities. They also submitted that the goods had not been cleared under the DEEC scheme in the instant case, therefore, no offence has been committed.

(3.) HEARD learned DR who submitted that from the narration of the facts and statements of the persons concerned, the adjudicating authority was justified in drawing the inference that the appellants were involved in the import of the goods and the appellants have facilitated the import of goods and had abetted the offence.