TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt contrary to the prohibition imposed by the competent authority in the Ministry of Commerce. Accordingly the consignment was confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Section 114(i) of the Act for having rendered the consignment liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Act. A fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also ordered to redeem the confiscated goods. The appellant is yet to pay the fine and penalty and the consignment of rice is lying at the port. Out-of-turn disposal of the case is prayed for on the ground that prolonged storage of the rice at the port premises would render it unfit for human consumption. This Tribunal has already granted w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. The lower authority had found that bringing the subject consignment to Chennai Port and filing Shipping Bill for its export involved attempt to export goods in contravention of restriction imposed under the Exim Policy and found the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. The goods were confiscated and a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- was ordered. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the exporter under Section 114 of the Act for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the attempt to export the consignment had occurred owing to the fact that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pting to export goods in contravention of prohibition. However, I find that this did not warrant the heavy fine and penalty imposed by the original authority and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). As rightly submitted by ld. Counsel, penalty could not be imposed for the reason that the statute provides for it. Unless a person is found guilty of contumacious conduct, penalty could not be imposed on him for technical or venial breach of statutory provisions. I also find that the ld. Counsel is correct in his submission that the authorities had wrongly invoked Section 113(i) of the Act. However, it cannot be denied that there has been a breach of the provisions which would justify the order of confiscation. In the circumstances I find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
