TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not seek any cross-examination of the Wildlife authorities. In its appeal it has stated that proper chemical analysis of the shawls was not conducted by wildlife authorities. The appellant has no basis to assert that when it did not seek any cross-examination of the wildlife authorities who tested the samples. There can be various ways to test a sample depending upon the purpose of test. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to penalty. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. C/367/2010-CU(DB) - F. Order No. 52602/2015 - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Appeal is filed against the order in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of hair to Tibetan Antelope in the said five shawls. The hair of Tibetan Antelope is listed at Sl No. 36A of Schedule 1 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and export of this item is prohibited. In the wake of this the consignment was examined 100% and 36 more shawls were identified by the Wildlife officer from the same packet No. 4 (from which the said five shawls were drawn as sample) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t conduct any chemical analysis or any forensic analysis as the report was silent about that. 5. We have considered the facts of the case. As stated earlier, no one on behalf of the appellant appeared for personal hearing. We also find that in the reply to the Show Cause Notice the appellant did not seek any cross-examination of the Wildlife authorities. In its appeal it has stated that proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation ordered by the primary adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority was only with regard to the 41 shawls. As 41 shawls were liable to confiscation on account of being attempted to be exported in spite of being prohibited for export, the appellant is clearly liable to penalty. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. 6. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
