TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to the jurisdictional High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The questions as formulated by the applicants are as under :- 1. Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, can be imposed on the applicant in the absence of any penalty proceedings against the exporter M/s. Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd. to whom no show cause notice was issued even though in the main body of the show cause notice, M/s. Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd. have been required to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs (ICDs), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, as to why the impugned goods should not be confiscated under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that personal penalty should not be imposed on them for attempting to export goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., C-122, IInd Floor, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New Delhi-64. 2. M/s. Falcon Air Cargo Travels Pvt. Ltd., 55-A, Siddharth Chambers, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. 3. Shri Vinod Kumar Chopra S/o Shri C.L. Chopra, II-O-33, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Shri Navneet Arora R/o R-202. IInd Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. 3. The proposal in the SCN to confiscate the goods and impose penalties on the exporting company [Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd.] and its director [Kirti B. Saluja] was based on the main allegation that they had misdeclared and over invoiced the export goods with intent to claim excess drawback of duty against the exportation. The exporters CHA [present applicants] and others were sought to be penalised fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed on the applicants for contumacious conduct or deliberate violation of law, in the absence of allegations to that effect in the SCN. The Departmental Representative; on the other hand, submitted that none of the questions raised by ld. Advocate had arisen out of the Tribunal s Order. 5.1 We have considered the submissions. The first two questions raised in the present application appear to be based on the premise that the SCN had not been issued to the exporting company viz. Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd. We observe that the SCN, which expressly called upon the said company, among others; to show cause against confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty, cannot be held to be one not issued to the company by mere reason of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping Bills filed by the CHA. That finding of fact was not challenged before the Tribunal in the appeals. Further, it was found by the Tribunal that the goods were overvalued in the export document. Therefore, the goods which were entered for exportation under claim for drawback and did not correspond in material particulars with the entries in the export documents were rightly found to be liable to confiscation under clause (i) of Section 113. The export documents were prepared and filed by the CHA. Under Regulation No. 14 of the Regulations, the CHA had an obligation to advise the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Act and notify any non-compliance to the Assistant Commissioner. It was also their obligation to ensure that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
