Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 679 - AT - CustomsConfiscation u/s 113(d) 113(i) - Penalty u/s 114(i) and 114AA - Levy of fine - Appellant did not dispute he allegations in the show cause notice nor the findings given by the adjudicating authority - Appellant plead only for leniency in the matter of imposition of fine and penalty - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- As far as the goods seized at the Air Cargo Complex, Sahar is concerned, the appellant Mr. Pradeep Dhond had declared the goods as 1360 kgs. of Lead Acetate Commercial Grade with an FOE value of ₹ 3,81,017.60. However the goods were found to be 116.400 kgs. of Amphetaminil, 320.600 kgs. of norephedrine hydrochloride totally valued at ₹ 1,10,25,000/- and 842.400 kgs of Lead Acetate valued at ₹ 2,10,600/-. Thus there is clear misdeclaration of both the description and value of the goods. Therefore, the provisions of 113(i) of the Customs Act is clearly attracted. Secondly the goods were sought to be exported using the IEC code of M/s. KLM Exports India without their knowledge. Thus violation of Section 7 of FTDR Act and Rules 12 and 14 of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993 is also established. The goods were brought within the customs area for the purpose of being exported. Thus the provisions of Section 113(d) are also attracted. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods is justified. Consequently penalty under Sections 114 and 114AA are also attracted. Regarding the goods seized at the transporter’s premises and the office premises of the appellant, confiscation has been proposed under Section 113(d). For confiscation under the said section, either there should be an attempt to export the goods or the goods should have been brought within the customs area for the purposes of export. Both these conditions are not satisfied in respect of these goods. Therefore, we set aside the confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty in respect of these goods as unsustainable in law. Adjudicating authority has dealt with this matter quite extensively. The allegation against the appellant has been very clearly established by the export documents seized, test reports on the nature of the goods, the statements of Satish Parab, the person who organized for the clearance of goods for export, Ankush Mohite, employee of the appellant, Ajay P. Singh, the transporter, officers of the CHA firm and the Airlines through whom the cargo was sought to be exported. None of these statements have been retracted and all of them along with the documents seized clearly establish the charge against the appellant Sri Pradeep Dhond. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|