Page 21 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] INDEX - 1st May, 2020 xix
Note 2 of Chapter 26 of Central Excise Tariff and definition of “minerals”
in various dictionaries - Furthermore, HSN clarifies that the term “ore”
applies only to goods that are not subjected to processes which are “not
normal to Metallurgical Industry” - Thus goods produced by subjecting
pure gold, sand and other materials to various processes to appear like
ore cannot be called ore, these processes, of mixing gold with sand and
other substances to create an ore like product, being not normal to
Metallurgical Industry — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs,
Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) ................................ 417
Partner of firm cannot be imposed with penalty when penalty already
imposed on firm - See under PENALTY ..................... 417
Peas import - Validity of notification modifying import from free to
restricted - See under EXIM ............................ 305
PENALTY :
— not imposable in respect of clearance of past consignments on basis of
current test report - See under CONFISCATION ................ 388
— Nubuck Leather declared for export not found to be Nubuck Leather on
testing, confiscation, Redemption Fine and penalty sustainable - See
under CONFISCATION .............................. 382
— on Custom House Agent - Mens rea - Penalties imposed under Section
112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 in respect of goods which have been held to
be liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 - Though
under Section 112(a) ibid mens rea may not be required to be proved as
condition precedent, however, when it comes to imposition of penalty, it
is necessary to show that said essential element/ingredient is present -
No element of mens rea or conscious knowledge which can be attributed
to CHA - Investigation carried out by CBI and other facts show that CHA
acted bona fide and merely facilitated imports on the strength of
documents which were handed over to him by importer - No ground to
interfere with findings of Tribunal - Sections 130 and 114AA of Customs
Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Del.) ...... 332
— on customs Broker - Facilitation/Abatement of concealment of
goods/non-declaration of restricted items imported by importer,
Allegation of - Antecedents or whereabouts of importer verified by
looking into DGFT website and no attempts made to meet importer in
person - HELD : When Ministry of Commerce granting IE licence
exhibited details of IEC holders in Website, appellant cannot be found
fault for accepting same to be true and correct - Also, apart from
statement of employees that previous consignment of same importer also
comprised of non-declared goods, no evidence on record to doubt
previous consignments - Also, statements retracted and not subjected to
cross-examination - Apart from allegation that appellant ought to have
been cautions, no evidence on record to show that appellant had any
knowledge of import of undeclared goods - When importer consciously
conceals certain facts from Customs Broker, it cannot be presumed that
Customs Broker abetted in such offence merely because he has not met
importer face-to-face - Nothing to hold that appellant intentionally
connived or abetted in non-declaration / concealment of the goods -
Impugned order is set aside - Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act,
1962 — WCI Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) .... 369
— on partner - Penalty when imposed on the firm, separate penalty on

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  21