TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng such acts, which render the goods liable for confiscation. That finding of the Commissioner is not in dispute. The Tribunal on an erroneous interpretation of Section113 read with 114 of the Customs Act has come to hold that no penalty is leviable. - where the findings of the Commissioner, on fact, supported by documents and the statement of individuals, clearly established the act of the respondent, which render the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. The respondent is one among the culprits, who attempted to export sandalwood in the guise of roofing tiles. Since the respondent had knowledge about the sandalwood being part of the consignment of roofing tiles, but did not intimate the same to the customs Authorities, he is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of them containing sandalwood and 57 containing roofing tiles intended for export to Singapore. Shri.R.Kalkan stated that as directed by Nathan, he along with Shri.Selvaraj had come to the godown for packing the tiles and that he did not know anything about sandalwood. Shri.Selvaraj also stated to the same effect. The sandalwood, export which was prohibited under the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade (D R) Act and the EXIM policy 1997-02, was seized by the officers. The roofing tiles, which appeared to have been used for concealing the sandalwood were also seized by them. The Officers also searched Room No.212 of Chitra Lodge, Tuticorin on the same day and recovered documents including visiting card of one Shri. Rahuman Sait, Shri Nathan, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the banner Janar Exports and his relative Shri.Mohan introduced Maideen of Chennai to him and the Maideen asked Janarthanan to help him in exporting goods such as sandalwood through Tuticorin Port and on 02.03.1998, Maideen contacted him over phone and told him that he got one order for export of Mangalore Tiles to Singapore from one Nathan and requested for arranging a godown. On 06.03.1998 Shri.Maideen sent documents by fax and asked Janarthanan to file the shipping bill as roofing tiles. On 07.03.1998, Janarthanan handed over the documents to Ramesh for filing the Shipping bill, who also filed the same through CHA M/s.Ukkirapandian Pillai Sons. On 09.03.1998 Nathan @ Rahuman Sait came to the office of the Janarthanan to ascertain t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The sandal wood was in the process of being packed and no attempt was made to export the same. The intention to cancel the Shipping Bill and that there was no attempt to export the same. 5. With regard to the levy of penalty, the findings of the Commissioner reads as follows: 5. Shri S.Janarthanan: It has been admitted by him that he was informed by Shri Rahuman Sait about the sandal wood being the part of roofing tiles. In spite of having knowledge, he did not inform the same to the Customs and was rather induced by Shri Maideen for monetary consideration to keep quiet. His omitting to do action required by him under the Customs Act, shows that he was involved in smuggling of sandal wood. He is, therefore, liable for penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of roofing tiles, he did not intimate the same to the Customs authorities. According to ld Commissioner, the omission of the appellant showed that he was involved in smuggling of sandalwood, attracting penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Now, one has got to examine the provisions of Section 114, which renders a person liable for penalty if any omission of his has rendered any goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. The omission found against the appellant is non-disclosure, to the Department, of attempted export of sandalwood by others. Such an omission, however, has not been shown to have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. It would follow that the essential requirement for a penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or commission of such an act shall be liable for penalty. For better clarity, it is apposite to refer Section 114 of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: SECTION 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc. Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
