TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms area After appellant sold goods to Pradeep, appellant thereafter was not concerned with said goods Section 114(i) can be imposed on person whose act renders goods liable for confiscation Movement of goods outside Customs area cannot be liable to confiscation Therefore, even if it was accepted that appellant supplied goods but at place outside Customs area, said goods was not liable to confiscation Hence, penalty upon Appellant was not sustainable Since role of appellant was only to supply goods in domestic area, therefore no penalty should have been imposed upon appellant either under Section 114(i) or under Section 114AA Thus, penalties imposed upon the appellant are unsustainable Decided in favour of Appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acid valued at ₹ 6500/-, 225 kgs of lead acetate valued at ₹ 56,250/- and medicines valued at ₹ 2,12,850/- from the office premises of Mr. Pradeep Dhond on 12/13-6-2008. A show cause notice dated 11-12-2008 was issued to Shri Pradeep Dhond and Shri S.P. Bahl proposing the confiscation of the aforesaid seized goods under Section 113(d) read with Section 7 of FTDR Act read with Rules 7 12 of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed upon Shri Pradeep Dhond and Shri S.P. Bahl (present appellant) under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. In adjudication, the ld. Commissioner has confiscated the aforesaid goods, imposed redemption fine and imposed penalties of equal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. The ld. Counsel submits that it is not correct to say in the impugned order that Summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was issued to Shri Satya Prakash Bahl, however he did not respond to the same, on visit DRI officers at his known addresses did not find him and thus statement of Shri S.P. Bahl could not be recorded. It is his submission that after search of the residence of the Appellant, he submitted a letter dated 7-7-2008 in the office of the DRI and obtained acknowledgement thereof wherein he not only clarified his position but denied the entire allegation made by Shri Dhond against him as regard involvement of export of mis-declared goods. He also offered his presence to the DRI officers, if required by DRI. However the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed upon Shri Pradeep Dhond. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the present appellant also deserves to be maintained. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. Before deciding that the penalties imposed upon the appellant is legal and correct or otherwise, it is necessary to analyse the role of the appellant in the present case. It was observed that the entire case of mis-declaration and consequential confiscation of goods attempted to be exported, was made out on the statement of Shri Pradeep Dhond. It has come out from the investigation and records that Shri Pradeep Dhond is the exporter of misdeclared goods. However the role of the appellant Shri S.P. Bahl is that he has supplied Lead Ace ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 114(i) can be imposed on the person whose act renders the goods liable for confiscation. In the present case the role of the appellant, that too as per the statement of Shri Pradeep Dhond is that the appellant supplied the goods only in domestic area i.e. out of Customs area. It is undisputed position that during the movement of goods outside Customs area can not be liable to confiscation. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the appellant has supplied the goods to Shri Pradeep Dhond but at a place outside Customs area, the said goods is not liable to confiscation. Hence, the penalty upon the Appellant is not sustainable. 8. The penalty under Section 114AA can be imposed if a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai on 12-6-2008 under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act and the imposition of fine and penalty under Section 125 and Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act. We set aside the confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the transporter Mr. Ajay P. Singh and the office premises of Shri Pradeep Dhond and consequential imposition of fine and penalty as unsustainable in law. 10. Following the said order, we are of the view that, since the role of the appellant is only to supply the goods to Shri Pradeep Dhond outside the Customs area, and therefore the said goods is not liable to confiscation, no penalty should have been imposed upon the appellant either under Section 114(i) or under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
