6 lakhs Rs.
37,97,434/ be number levied and recovered from them apart from assessing penalty and other action on account of short levy occasioned by wilful misstatement and suppression of facts by the importers, M s. RST and their principals, M s. SLS, It is number disputed that in the transaction in question the appellant had acted in the capacity of agent of respondent No.
I therefore impose a personal penalty of Rs.
M s. Ranadip and M s. Sea Land are found to have acted or omitted to act in such a manner making these goods otherwise liable to companyfiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
Six Lakhs only on M s. Ranadip Shipping Transport Co. Pvt.
The two appeals have been disposed of by a companymon order dated 14.3.1997.
2 preferred separate appeals to the CEGAT.
Customs duty should be recovered from M s. Ranadip in respect of 184 chassis imported and put into use in Bombay port in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, deducting the duty already paid.
6 lakhs Rs.
2 having number been joined as party respondent in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal should number companye in the way of the plea being heard and adjudicated upon on merits by the Tribunal.
Ltd., as well as their principals M s. Sea Land Service Inc. have rendered themselves for penal action also.
10 lacs was deposited by the appellant by way of pre deposit as a companydition precedent to the hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.
However, the fact remains that the appellant and the respondent No.
The rate of duty and the exchange should be calculated on the rate prevailing on the date of filing of the 4 Bs E in respect of the 84 chassis out of 184 chassis admittedly imported.
2 had both preferred their separate appeals before the Tribunal.
Ltd. and Rs.
2 hereinafter SLS, for short requiring them to show cause why duty amounting to Rs.
C. Lahoti, J. Notice under proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued on 13th May, 1985 and served on M s. Ranadip Shipping Transport Co. Pvt Ltd., the appellant, hereinafter RST, for short and M s Sea Land Service Incorporated the respondent No.
2 under the companytract entered into between the appellant and the respondent No.
The adjudicating authority, i.e., the Collector of Customs, Bombay by Order In Original dated 3.5.1988 held as under The chassis should be valued on the basis of the valuation shown in the show cause numberice and the demand numberice i.e. at the unit price US 2,535/ per chassis CIF Bombay.
2 as a party respondent before the CEGAT.
The appellant and the respondent No.
Six Lakhs only on M s. Sea Land Services Inc. The demand Notice for recovery issued on 15.5.88 is also companyfirmed.
Further, as the evidence on record has brought out a case of wilful delaying of payment of Customs Duty I find that M s. Ranadip Shipping Transport Co. Pvt.
