TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch on the exporter, M/s Electrotherm India Ltd. and on the CHA, M/s Sahil Freight Express Pvt. Ltd - order of the lower authority is upheld. - C/205 & 206/11 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. Appearance: Shri. C.S. Biradar D.H.Nadkarni, Advocate for appellant Shri. M.S. Reddy, Dy. Comm. (AR), for respondent Per: P. R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeals and stay applications are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.39 40 (D Node)/2011(JNCH)/EXP -12-13 dated 28/01/2011 02/02/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva. 2. The appellants herein are M/s. Sahil Freight Express Pvt. Ltd., CHA and M/s. Electrotherm India Ltd., the exporter. They filed a shipping bill no. 5692848 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is the responsibility of the exporter as well as his agent, the CHA, to ensure that the goods are exported after all export formalities such as assessment and examination of the goods are completed and Let Export Order is given by the proper of Customs. In the instant case, the custom authorities has not issued the Let Export Order and before issuing of the Let Export Order, the vessel sailed resulting in breach of the Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act. Section 113(g) of the Customs Act provides that any goods loaded or attempted to be loaded on any conveyance, or water-borne or attempted to be water borne for being loaded on any vessel the eventual destination of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act and the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114(iii). There is no mens rea required for imposition of penalty under Section 114. Any action or omission on the part of any person which makes the goods liable to confiscation attracts penalty. Therefore, imposition of penalty on the exporter and the CHA for the omission on their part in exporting the goods before grant of LEO was in accordance with law. This Tribunal in the case of Nichrome India Ltd. 2010 (251) ELT 147 and Zenith Rubber Plastic Works 2009 (238) ELT 646 held that whosoever is found to have committed something paving the way for shipment of the goods without LEO or to have omitted to do anythi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
