LASER RECYCLING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed one by M/s. Laser Recycling and the other by Shri Harish B. Tekwani against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a consignment of imported material landed at Kandla Port. No Bill of Entry was filed by any one. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the persons whose name appeared in the invoices and the Bill of Lading. They were asked to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed.

(3.) Shri K. Kumar, Id. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had entered into an agreement for supply of scrap with M/s. EFP International Inc., New York. He submits that the present consignment was not ordered by the appellants. He submits that the appellants had nothing to do with the imported goods. Referring to some case law as also the definition of 'import' Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants were not owner of the goods. It was the shipper who was the owner of the goods. He submits that since the appellants had not owned the goods and had not filed any Bill of Entry nor had they placed any order for supply of these goods, the question of imposition of any penalty on the appellants did not arise. Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants had nothing to do with the goods. It was, therefore, prayed that since there was no evidence to link the appellants with the alleged illegal import, therefore, the question of imposing any penalty on the appellants did not arise.