LAWS(CE)-2002-9-49

PRAVEEN KUMAR DALMIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Decided On September 20, 2002
Praveen Kumar Dalmia Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the intelligence gathered by the Zonal unit of DRI, a show cause notice was issued on 13 -2 -97 to the appellant herein, the proprietor of M/s. Vinayaka Industries, Bangalore alleging that they have imported and disposed of raw silk yarn. This raw silk yarn was imported on six different advance licences under the DEEC Scheme. The show cause notice alleged that there was an admitted lapse and clear violation of the provisions of the DEEC Scheme and the licensing conditions governing duty free import of the raw silk yarn in question and customs duty on an import of 6116.530 Kgs of raw silk amounting to Rs. 13,59,472/ - became liable to be paid and the same was paid up by various demand drafts as detailed in the notice. The proprietor also indicated in his statement that the Bank Guarantee executed by him may be enforced to the extent of Rs. 97,825/ - and the balance would be paid by him. After completion of the enquiries, a show cause notice was issued inter alia to the present appellant requiring to show cause as to why -Now THEREFORE Shri Praveen Kumar Dalmia and Shri Chaganmal Jain are hereby required to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Madras as to why :

(2.) (a) When the matter was called Shri Lakshmi Narayan learned advocate fairly conceded that he is not pressing the appeal, as regards the liability to pay the duty, as determined. He is contesting the levy and recovery of interests thereon and the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. He submits that the interest proposed was to be recovered under the provision of para 128A(iii) of the Exim Policy and not under Section 28AA or AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and this interest could not therefore be recovered by the Commissioner of Customs. As regards the penalty, he submits that no goods are held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and therefore no penalty under Section 112 was called for.

(3.) AFTER consideration of the matter we find :