TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany, whose petitions have already been dismissed, as noticed hereinbefore. So far the petitioner-Company is concerned, the basis of quantum of penalty i.e., ₹ 50,00,000/- is not available as such in the order dated 12.03.2013. For the present purpose, we are of the view that when the petitioner has deposited a substantial amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2013, any direction for deposit of any further amount may cause undue hardship to the petitioner. On the contrary, after such a deposit of the sum of ₹ 20,00,000/-, hearing of the petitioner’s appeal by the Tribunal on merits would serve the cause of justice. Hence, the rule issued in this matter on 19.12.2013 deserves to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits of the case and hence, dilatation on all the factual aspects is not necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects of the matter would suffice. The Order-in-Original No.4/2013 dated 12.03.2013 came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur with reference to the show cause notices issued to 8 persons/entities following the investigation made in the matter of the goods cleared for export by one M/s Mehar Traders, K-170, Durgadas Colony, Baldev Nagar, Masuria, Jodhpur from ICD, Jodhpur to the overseas buyer in Dubai. The Department called back the container carrying the exported goods to Mundra Port and on examination, found the same stuffed with Red Sander Logs, an item prohibited for export, instead o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontravention of the provisions of Regulation 6(i), (k) and 6(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Thus I have no doubt while holding that M/s Max Shipping Forwarders P Ltd. are guilty of abetment of smuggling of red sanders and are liable for penalty under section 114(i) of Customs Act 1962. In view of the above, the Commissioner proceeded to impose a penalty in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on the petitioner-Company under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2013 before the Tribunal with the contentions, inter alia, that the findings returned in the order are beyond the allegations levelled in the show cause notice; that the findings are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner-Company to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the penalty levied upon them. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, with the submissions that instead of dealing with the persons directly and actively involved in the alleged smuggling, the Department has proceeded to impose an excessive penalty on the petitioner, who had no direct role to play in the matter and no case is made out that the petitioner was directly involved in the alleged export of the prohibited goods. The present writ petition was considered alongwith two other petitions filed by the said Operational Executive and the Managing Director of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petitions are required to be, and are, therefore, dismissed. So far petitioner of CWP No.14362/2013 is concerned, it has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as against the disputed due demand of about Rs.50,00,000/-. The matter, only as regards quantum, prima facie appears calling for consideration, particularly looking to the subject-matter of the appeal and the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner. Therefore, let notice for final disposal be issued to the respondents in this case. Service on the proforma respondent No.1 is dispensed with. So far respondent No.2 is concerned, Mr.Ravi Bhansali, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Excise has put in appearance. Paper-book be supplied to the learned counsel Mr.Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty i.e., Rs.50,00,000/- is not available as such in the order dated 12.03.2013. For the present purpose, we are of the view that when the petitioner has deposited a substantial amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2013, any direction for deposit of any further amount may cause undue hardship to the petitioner. On the contrary, after such a deposit of the sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, hearing of the petitioner s appeal by the Tribunal on merits would serve the cause of justice. Hence, the rule issued in this matter on 19.12.2013 deserves to be made absolute with further necessary observations. Accordingly and in view of the above, this petition is allowed in the manner that the condition of pre-deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
