9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhanot, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Mahajan appears for the Customs and Central Excise. These four appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 arise out of the common order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.C/276/2011; C/277 of 2011; C/278/2011 and C/279/2011 imposing redemption fine and penalties for mis-declaration in exporting the non-Basmati Rice, prohibited from exports. The facts in brief are that export of non-basmati rice was prohibited by the notification dated 1st April, 2008, by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India. The petitioners were found to be involved in an attempt to export non-basmati ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vikram Bisht from ICD Loni, Ghaziabad for supplying and exporting nonbasmati rice as basmati rice. The appellants played fraud, and admitted that they were exporting non-basmati rice as basmati rice, which was prohibited in law. In the appeal filed in the CESTAT, it has observed in the opening paragraph as follows:- "Appeals as detailed below were listed for hearing of the stay application appearing under each such appeal. At the outset it was brought to our notice that there is no dispute about the nature and quality of goods involved in different containers which were non-basmati rice and were subject matter of attempt to export. The only dispute raised by them was against the redemption fine and penalties imposed as mentioned against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to him were not obtained from the accredited and recognised laboratories. He submits that the appellants were not given an opportunity to object to these reports and to cross examine the persons, who had examined the samples. The appellants were also not given opportunity to send the samples to some other laboratories. He has also relied upon State of U.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 280 in support of his submissions. Shri Ajay Bhanot relies upon para 71 of the affidavit in support of the appeals and ground no.19 in submitting that the arguments with regard to lack of jurisdiction, denial of opportunity to send the samples to some other laboratory as well as cross-examination of one Shri Diwakar Mishra, was denied. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard to non-consideration of matter on merits, the point should have been taken in the Tribunal itself. Having failed to do so, the appellant cannot be allowed to canvass the point in the High Court in an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. So far as redemption fine and penalties are concerned, we find that the Tribunal has been too lenient with the appellants. In case of Jai Bamleshwari Rice Sortex as against declared value of Rs.29,23,760/-, market value has been taken as Rs.9,68,496/-. The redemption fine has been imposed at 10% of the penalty under Section 114 (5) on the ground that the goods were not exported and that containers did not go out of India. The Tribunal also considered the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
