TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of Section 114AA, which provides for wrong making of declaration, statements, would not be justifiable - Held that: imposition of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on M/s Trinity Shipping & Allied Services, a CHA firm, imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, separate penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the said appellant under Section 114AA and penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on Shri Saju Perumal, Director of the CHA are set aside - Appeals are disposed of - C/29-32/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri P.V. Sheth, Adv. for the Assessee. Shri R. Nagar, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Archana Wadhwa: All the four appeals are being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, dt.1.4.98 issued by DGFT. Statement of Shri Saju Perumal, Director of the CHA M/s Trinity Shipping Allied Services was recorded on 14.7.10, wherein he deposed that he was aware of export of non-Basmati rice is banned; that he was not aware that the goods in question were non-Basmati rice. Subsequently, the statements of Shri Kalapi Joshi, Customs Clerk of the said CHA as also of Shri Ismail Osman Jat, H-Card holder of CHA were recorded. Statement of Shri Sandeep Bhagia, Branch Manager of CFS M/s Seabird Marine Services Pvt.Ltd. were recorded. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confiscation of the seized goods as also for imposition of penalties upon them. The said Show Cause Notice s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14AA of Customs Act, 1962 are not warranted. Similarly, he submits that inasmuch as the partnership firm has already been penalized, there was no justification for imposition of penalty of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on Shri Solly Perumal, Partner of M/s Phonix Traders. 5. Arguing on behalf of the CHA, ld.Advocate submits that the CHA was not aware of the fact that consignment of rice declared as that of Basmati rice was, in fact, of non-Basmati rice. As such, he submits that the penalty on said CHA was not justified. In any case, he submits that imposition of separate penalty under two provisions of Customs Act, 1962 i.e. 114 and 114AA for the same offence was not justified. Similarly, separate penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there is no doubt to the fact that the consignment declared as Basmati rice was found to be non-Basmati rice. Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants has also not challenged that the same is liable to confiscation as held by adjudicating authority. However, he prays for reducing the redemption fine on the ground that there was no intention on the part of the exporter to export non-Basmati rice and the said act is due to the mix up of non-Basmati rice with Basmati rice in their godown. 8. We find no justification in the above plea of the appellant. As observed by the Commissioner, the appellant has nowhere produced any evidence to show that they were dealing with non-Basmati rice for the local traders and there was any mix up of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees Five Lakhs only) imposed upon M/s Phonix Traders under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, as we find the same to be reasonable. 10. However, when a person intends to do unlawful activity, in the process, he will make false declarations or documents or statements etc. The provisions of Section 114 would also cover such activity on the part of the defaulter. As such, we are of the view that imposition of separate penalty on the said appellant in terms of Section 114AA, which provides for wrong making of declaration, statements, would not be justifiable. We, accordingly, set aside the penalty imposed upon M/s Phonix Traders under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. 11. Similarly, a separate penalty of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
