TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd penalty cannot be sustained - even if the goods were prohibited the customs authorities as well as the appellants genuinely believed that the same was not prohibited – the opinions given by the DGFT and the NOC issued by the Forest Department also support the case of the appellant that there was no intention to export the prohibited goods and there was no mis-declaration – stay application allowed – decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No: C/2404/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2013 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, J. For the Appellant: Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT The appellant filed a shipping bill for export of 1900 pieces of casuarina wood poles (central poles f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 3. The Revenue has relied upon the test report, according to which the samples were considered as wood and containing bark to an extent of 3-5% and species was identified as casuarina. According to the learned Addl. Commissioner (AR), the report indicating that the sample of wood goes against the assessee because wood in primary form is classifiable under 4401 of ITC(HS) and according to Foreign Trade Policy, the wood classified under 4401 are prohibited for export. On the other hand the learned advocate has submitted that there was a NOC issued by Deputy Conservator of Forest Department, Mangalore Division who after taking note of the item being exported and considering the law as applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or value. If that is the case, there is no use for seeking information under RTI Act. If the Government Departments are going to give wrong information under RTI and information given under RTI Act cannot be relied upon, it will be totally against the concept under which the RTI Act was brought out in statute book. Under these circumstances, I consider that the opinions given by the DGFT and the NOC issued by the Forest Department also support the case of the appellant that there was no intention to export the prohibited goods and there was no mis-declaration. The learned advocate at this stage fairly submitted that he does not want any decision as to whether the goods are prohibited or not. Therefore I am not going into the question as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
