TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,000/- and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Food Specialities Ltd. Moga used to export Lactogen to Subhala Trading Concern, Kathmandu, on the basis of permit obtained from Indian Embassy, Kathmandu. The permit was for 41 M.T. The validity was extended upto March 1989 vide Embassy s letter No. Kat/Con/2218/5/88 dated 4-1-1989. Food Specialities Ltd., Moga already exported 40.992 M.T. Lactogen to Kathmandu and only remaining 8 Kgs. of Lactogen was due for export. Meanwhile on 10-3-1989 M/s Dooars Transport Pvt. Ltd. Raxaul (the present appellants), who were the clearing agent of the F. S. Ltd. presented bill of export for exportation of 1800 Kgs. Lactogen and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fault. 4. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued and the appellant replied to the same and the impugned order was passed after personal hearing. 5. The learned Advocate Shri Sekhar Mookhopadhyay appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that there was no attempt to remove Lactogen to Nepal and at best it can only be a preparation. However, he stated that the Customs authorities themselves cleared for the movement of the goods and there was only a mistake on the part of the appellants. But the learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar stated that there was an attempt on the part of the appellant to illegally export Lactogen to Kathmandu without a necessary permit in this behalf. He, therefore, relied on the reasonings given in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of movement towards the border of the country. So also in the decision reported in 1985 ECR 1618 in the case of M/s. Ranjit Exports Pvt. Ltd. the Madras High Court held that the essential ingredients of export denotes and connotes the taking out of India all the goods in question. It was held by their Lordships that taking connotes a movement of the goods with intention to move the goods out of India. It was again stressed by their Lordships that the movement could as well be within the territory of India. But there should be movement of the goods. Otherwise, the very concept of taking out will have no meaning. 8. Applying the above-said principles to the facts of this case it is clearly seen that the goods were still in the custody ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
