Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 175 - CESTAT MUMBAIConfiscation u/s 113(g) and Penalty u/s 114(iii) - Held that:- vessel has sailed on 25-12-2009 whereas the LEO was given only on 26-12-2009. As per the provisions of Section 113(g) “any goods loaded or attempted to be loaded on any conveyance, or water-borne, or attempted to be water-borne for being loaded on any vessel, the eventual destination of which is a place outside India, without the permission of the “proper officer” of the Customs is liable to confiscation. In the case before me, the goods have been loaded and the vessel has sailed before the LEO was given by the Customs officer and, therefore, the goods are liable to confiscation. Once the goods are held to be liable to confiscation as per Section 113(g), any person who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 or abets or aids such acts, shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the value of the goods declared by the exporter or the value as determined by the Customs Act, whichever is greater. If the exporter chooses to export goods without obtaining LEO from the proper officer of Customs, he is liable for the consequences - both the exporter and the CHA failed in the responsibility to comply with the requirement of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1961 and therefore, they are liable to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. Thus the appellant has not made out a case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalties adjudged against them - Stay granted partly.
|