Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 47 - CESTAT NEW DELHIConfiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - Attempt to export non basmati rice in guise of basmati rice - Held that:- in the guise of basmati rice, attempt has been made to export non-basmati rice adopting a questionable modus operandi. Actually 34 containers were cleared from a port CFS Albatross. It came out that the containers were stuffed in such way that front row contained basmati rice and second row contained non-basmati rice. Samples were manipulated to gain favourable report confirming that the rice being exported was basmati rice. It was only on receipt of information and subsequent test report, questionable modus operandi of appellants, connivance of certain departmental officers as well as laboratory staff of SIIR, New Delhi came to light. Such practice was followed to defraud the revenue. Only one sample in respect of test memo no.45 failed the specification and did not conform to the requirement as laid down by DGFT Notification No. 39/(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 16.9.2008 as amended, that is, grain of rice to be exported shall be more than 7 mm of length and ratio of length/breadth of the grain shall be more than 3.6 mm. Confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 68 lakhs in the circumstances of the case is justified. This is exemplary case where higher penalty is warranted and no leniency is deserved. We do not consider it proper to interfere with order of redemption fine as it is appropriate and justified. Similarly, there is no scope for reduction of penalty of ₹ 10 lakh imposed on the appellant as their modus operandi proved that they were consciously involved in the export of non-basmati rice which were prohibited goods. Similarly role of CHA was contrary to the CHALR 2004. Attempt to export non-basmati rice in the guise of Basmati rice would not have been possible without CHA s involvement. Their conduct and contradictory stand by Shri Sunil Bhatia CHA and his manager Shri Sushil Malik regarding physical verification proves their active involvement. Same CHA s name has also come in appellant s other company M/s Vaibhav Overseas where similar modus operandi was noticed. We are convinced that CHA has rightly been imposed penalty. Considering amount of penalty being low but revenue not being in appeal, we do not interfere to the penalty imposed in adjudication and uphold the same. - Decided against assessee.
|