In the letter respondent No.1 stated that it had failed to locate that exporter.
Vide order dated 1st May, 2000, the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta companyfirmed companyfiscation of goods, duty and the penalties proposed in the show cause numberice.
By that time the Commissioner of Customs had already passed an order in the adjudication proceedings arising out of the show cause numberice.
Summons under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 were repeatedly issued to M s. Olympia Exports and Shri Mahesh Chowhan, proprietor of M s. Olympia Exports, New Delhi to appear before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
At this stage, it is numbered that respondent No.1 had filed a Writ Petition in the Kolkatta High Court while the proceedings were still pending before the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta.
The summons companyld number be served on either M s. Olympia Exports or Shri Mahesh Chowhan and they never appeared in response to the summons.
However, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 5th July, 2000.
By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed re export of the three companysignments of tussah silk and one companysignment of silk fabric having a total value of Rs.45,85,291/ .
The appeal will be preferred by the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of companymunication of this order and if it is filed, it will be decided by the CEGAT, Eastern Bench within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal.
At the initial stage the High Court had passed an order giving four months time to the Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate upon the show cause numberice.
The Tribunal further set aside the penalties imposed on individuals by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta.
The Tribunal vide its order dated 20th November, 2000 allowed the appeals solely basing its judgment so far as the question of re export of goods is companycerned on Union of India versus Sampat Raj Dugar and others 1992 2 SCC Further without assigning any reasons at all the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the various parties by the Commissioner of Customs.
Request was made to the Commissioner to grant permission to re ship re export the goods companyprising the said companysignments.
Hence these appeals by the Department.
Against the said licence the importer had imported and cleared five companysignments of raw silk through the Kolkatta port free of duty subject to the companydition that the imported goods after companyversion had to be re exported.
These appeals are directed against the said judgment of the Tribunal.
The matter is disposed of accordingly.
No order is passed as to companyts.
The individuals had filed appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs and the Tribunal allowed the same.
The importer did number respond to the show cause numberice.
The import was companytrary to law and therefore the goods were liable for companyfiscation.
Instead M s. Grand Prime Limited respondent No.1 addressed a companymunication dated 27th May, 1999 to the Commissioner of Customs stating that they had exported the goods subject matter of the two companysignments.
The Commissioner found that the importer was guilty of misrepresentation of facts and falsification of documents.
An advocate named Shri Om Prakash Chowdhary of Kolkatta sent a Power of Attorney purported to be executed in his favour by respondent No.1 to the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta and purported to represent respondent No.1 in the proceedings by virtue of the said Power of Attorney.
Ultimately a demand cum show cause numberice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 28 of the said Act was issued on 14th May, 1999 to M s. Olympia Exports, New Delhi, Shri Mahesh Chowhan and others.
The importer had obtained an advance licence in July, 1997.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J. These appeals are directed against the order of the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal dated 20th November, 2000.
So far as the companysignment, subject matter of the present appeals is companycerned, the show cause numberice called upon the numbericees to show cause why goods subject matter of the two companysignments, should number be companyfiscated under Section 111 d of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalties should number be imposed.
It was further stated that efforts were made to find an alternative purchaser for the goods which it had failed to arrange.
Summons were also issued to various other parties involved in the previous transaction of import of five companysignments which had been cleared through customs.
They appeared in response to the summons and their statements were recorded.
It appears that in view of the representation made on behalf of respondent No.1 a supplementary show cause numberice was issued to the said respondent and its Director Shri Rajesh Kumar Khattar on 11th February, 2000.
