Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs (Export) , Nhava Sheva Versus Mr. Sohel Firoz Kazani & Mr. Ramdas T Gadge

2015 (11) TMI 1502 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA for abetting the export of the prohibited goods - confiscation under Section 113 - Whether or not the respondents had knowingly attempted to export prohibited goods i.e. rice in the guise of dal Husk are liable for penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- there is no breach of obligations by the respondents Director and employee of CHA. It is not the case that CHA had got the goods loaded in the container. Further, on noticing the mis-declar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate ORDER Per: Shri Anil Choudhary The Revenue is in appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 2641 & 2642(ADJN.-EXP)/2014(JNCH)/EXP-132 & 133 dated 26.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, wherein the penalty imposed on the respondent (Director of CHA firm), Shri Sohel Firoz Kazani and the employee Shri Ramdas T Gadge of the CHA firm M/s Interport Impex Pvt. Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich is prohibited vide Notification No. 38/07 dated 15.10.2007. Detailed investigation revealed that two persons viz. Shri Anand Kursija and Shri Om Prakash Gurbani attempted to export non-basmati rice illegally under VKGUY scheme. For this purposes, they unauthorisedly used the IEC of M/s Crescent Trading and Impex Co., Pune by forging and fabricating the letter heads and stamps of the said firm. Regarding the role of the respondents in this case, it was found that the Respondent No. 1 Directo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re held liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act. A penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed on respondent No. 1, the Director of the CHA firm, Mr. Sohel Firoz Kazani and a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Section 114(i) was imposed on the employee of the CHA firm, Mr. R.T. Gadge. 2.1 Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that in normal course of duty, the Shed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner of Customs (Export) in writing with a copy marked to Manager and Apprising Officer at Speedy CFS, the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and the officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the same date i.e. on 26.8.2010 itself, informing with reference Shipping Bill No. 8781138 dated 23.8.2010 about the mis-declaration of cargo discovered by them in the process of marking the bags containing the cargo. It was specifically informed that the subject load of the goods contained rice and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on was the said Anand Kursija, who was in connivance with Shri Gurbani for export of rice, which was prohibited. The allegation on the respondent is that they had knowingly aided and abetted the export of the prohibited goods. The scrutiny of the records proved to contrary of the findings in the Order-in-Original. It was further found by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that findings in the Order-in-Original for imposing penalty are based on assumption and presumption. The Commissioner (Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that while de-stuffing of the cargo was done on 26.8.2010, it was noticed that no shipping marks and number, as per the related invoices, were found on the gunny bags. It is further observed that the statement of the CHA representative and respondent No. 2 Mr. R.T. Gadge, in which he had stated that on 25.8.2010 around 17.30 hrs. two containers for export in the name of M/s Crescent Trading and Impex were taken in by him at Speedy CFS. That around 7.00 pm when he asked Customs officer Shri S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

writing as indicated herein above. The Commissioner (Appeals) further found that CHA have followed the rules and procedure for export of goods and have never avoided the de-stuffing of the container for examination. If the CHA would have been in connivance or that the containers were having prohibited goods rice, he would have tried to convince the examining officer of the Customs to examine the cargo without de-stuffing, which is not the fact obtained as per the report of Customs officer Mr. So .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Further, on very first opportunity on getting knowledge of prohibited goods, the CHA have informed the Customs authorities in writing. Thus, the action of the CHA cannot be considered to be an after-thought. Further, no other mala fide was found regarding the use of IEC of another by the said Anand Kursija and Shri Gurbani. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the penalty imposed on the respondent Director and the CHA is bad and set aside the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing that of others. Moreover, such exporter was no functioning from address furnished to DGFT pertaining to such IEC assignee. Further, mis-declaration of quantity, value and description of the export goods was found. In such circumstances, there being no finding of positive role of CHA which can be described as attempt to illicit export, no penalty was held imposable on the CHA of the exporter. 3. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits as under: - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adage could also notice it before carting of goods and brought it to the notice of the officer before proceeding for examination. 3.2 The appellant involved himself knowingly in abetting the export of the prohibited goods and thus making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of CA and thus has rendered himself liable to penal action under Section 114(i) of CA 62. 3.3 The officer in his report mentioned that while de-stuffing the cargo which was done on 26.08.2010, it was noticed tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.07.2010. 3.6 It was a responsibility of the CHA to verify the antecedents of the exporter or their customer. 3.7 The act of Shri Sohel Kazani appeared to be a desperate act for covering his role in smuggling of prohibited goods out of India and nexus between exporter and CHA. 3.8 Whether or not the respondents had knowingly attempted to export prohibited goods i.e. rice in the guise of dal Husk are liable for penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.9 The ratio of the judgemen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version