TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther adds to the credibility of his (i.e., the appellant’s) statemen). It is, thus, obvious that the appellant was fully aware of the illegal nature of the goods attempted to be exported and the mis-declaration thereof. In the light of the foregoing analysis, I am of the view that the appellant is guilty of abetment of the attempted to export which attracts penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the fact and the role played by the appellant in the attempted illegal export and the nature of the impugned goods, I find that the penalty imposed is neither excessive nor arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, I do not find any reasonable ground warranting appellate intervention in the impugned order - Decided against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instrumental in getting the consignment of antiques cleared through Customs by using IE code of some other company and mis-declaring the goods as auto parts. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, the appellant admitted that Mr. Rajeev Gupta hired him and told him that both would be packing statues (murtiyan) and auto parts that he contacted Mr. Sanjiv Rana for customs clearance of the impugned goods that he and Mr. Rajeev Gupta were taking delivery of the consignments at petrol pump, that he was managing work of packing consignments in wooden boxes after taking the consignments in tempo from Jangpura to Mahipalpur that he was getting the paperwork done for exports. 2. The appellant has contended that he was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which further adds to the credibility of his (i.e., the appellant s) statemen). It is, thus, obvious that the appellant was fully aware of the illegal nature of the goods attempted to be exported and the mis-declaration thereof. In the light of the foregoing analysis, I am of the view that the appellant is guilty of abetment of the attempted to export which attracts penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the fact and the role played by the appellant in the attempted illegal export and the nature of the impugned goods, I find that the penalty imposed is neither excessive nor arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, I do not find any reasonable ground warranting appellate intervention in the impugned order. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
