9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation together, as both the appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 54/2003/CAC/CC/SK dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 M/s Laxmi Steel Forgings Ltd, Jalandhar, filed two DEPB Shipping Bills vide Shipping Bill Nos 5226802 and 5226803 both dated 24.09.2002 for the export of an aggregate quantity of 8000 of C-Spanner declaring a unit price of US$ 7.65 per set for a total FOB value of Rs 29,44,514/- and claiming a total DEPB benefit of Rs 3,82,786/-. The Shipping Bills were filed through CHA No. 11/969 M/s Air and Sea Clearing Forwarding Pvt Ltd. On examination of the packages submitted for export, it was noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by attempting to secure clearance for exports on DEPB Shipping Bills misdeclaring the quantity. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000/- on Mr. Sanjay Surve under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 The appellants are in appeal against the imposition of penalties under the impugned order. 3. Mr. Vijay Sonu Golatkar was represented by his advocate Mr. G.B. Yadav, while none appeared for Mr. Sanjay Surve.The Revenue was represented by Mr. A.K. Prabhakar, learned JDR. 4. As the issues involved in both the appeals are common, we take up the same for consideration together. 5. The learned counsel Mr. G.B. Yadav submits that the conduct on the part of his client can at best be described as negligence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orization for exports from the exporter and he left blank forms duly signed which were used by his employees in the commission of the alleged export. Thus, he did not exercise active control on the action of his employees, thereby, leading to commission of the offence and therefore, he is liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. As regards Mr. Sanjay Surve, he was not authorized by the Customs to receive any documents from the exporter and he dealt with the documents in a completely illegal way and therefore, he facilitated the ineligible claim of DEPB benefit by the exporter and therefore, penalty on him under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified. 8.1 We have carefully considered the submissions. Section 114 (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export. Thus, his conduct constituted both omission and commission, omission in relation to not acquiring authorization for export and commission in relation to signing blank forms which could be misutilised by its employees. It is on record and it is not in dispute that the goods which were handed over to the CHA were packed in packages which were not uniform in size, even though each package was supposed to contain a uniform quantity of the goods in question. Further the goods were stacked by the employees of the CHA in such a way that only bigger cartons which contained the correct number of the product were kept in front and the balance cartons which were containing deficient quantity of the goods were kept at the back so as to escape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
