(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Order -in -Original No. 15/99/Commr Adjn, dated 31 -12 -1999, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that M/s Reinig Lighting (India) Ltd., a 100% E.O.U., having their manufacturing unit at Mysore, imported certain machinery under two Bills of Entry dated 30 -01 -96 and 08 -02 -96. The machinery were imported free of duty under the 100% E.O.U. Scheme after taking necessary permission and observing the formality. In terms of the approval, the unit was required to manufacture and export energy saving florescent tubes. The value of the imported capital goods was of the order of Rs. 3.92 crores. Investigation carried out by the Revenue officers reveals that the goods had been un -authorisedly removed from the 100% E.O.U. premises in Mysore to another premises in Bangalore. All the details of the case are need not to be taken. As far as the present appellant is concerned in the impugned order, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The role of the appellant is that there were mis -declaration in the Bills of Entry which showed that the machinery imported by M/s. Reinig Lighting (l) Ltd. were manufactured in 1990 whereas they were actually manufactured in 1965. Moreover in terms of the approval, the machines imported under the EOU Scheme should be used for the purpose of manufacture of energy saving lamps whereas the imported machinery were not capable of the manufacturing energy saving lamps. As the appellant had signed the Bills of Entry and also he had visited Germany before the import of the machinery and also after the import he had inspected them, the Adjudicating authority has found that he was responsible for the mis -declaration and that he had actively participated in the illegal import. Hence penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs had been imposed on him. The appellant has strongly contended the findings of the Adjudicating authority.
(3.) SHRI Laxminarayan, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Sudha Koka, learned SDR for the Revenue.