TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the supporting manufacturer. Therefore, the appellants have knowingly committed offence as specified under Section 113(i) and made themselves liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Shri Rajendra Doshi, General Manager of appellant co. has admitted in his statement, that he visited the factory of M/s. Siddhi Creative, who has issued the invoices and found that M/s. Siddhi Creative did not have the manufacturing unit. Knowingly this fact, he has mis-declared the bogus ARE-1s in the shipping bills. Thus, he was indulged in entire offence committed by the appellant colluding with M/s Siddhi Creative. It is found that the equal amount of penalty was imposed each on the appellant company as well as Shri Rajend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evidence that no manufacturing activities ever took place in the registered factory premises and no goods were purchased/brought/manufactured or sold in the said unit of the supporting manufacture. This was admitted by the proprietor. There was mala fide intention of the proprietor to claim undue rebate of Central Excise duty and inflate the value of the export goods for claiming undue DEPB benefit. The goods mentioned under impugned 5ARE-1s were shown as sold to the appellant who was a merchant exporter. Thus it appeared that there was willful misstatement and suppression of facts by the exporter i.e. appellant, leading to the issuance of DEPB licenses which in turn has led to duty free clearance of imported goods. The DEPB licenses obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1s. The goods before being permitted to be exported are subject to verification and permitted for export after customs supervision and container sealing. The appellant have bonafidle purchased the goods for export and the same has been exported, their export is not in dispute. If at all any offence or wrong doing committed by the manufacturer the appellant being merchant exporter cannot be penalized for the offence committed by some other person. He submits that it was held by the lower authorities that goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. According to which, if the export is made contrary to any prohibition the goods shall be liable to confiscation where as in the present case the goods were not prohib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of the Act, the same are reproduced below: Section 113 . Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported etc.- The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation:- (a) . (b) ... ( c) (d) any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; (e) .. (f) (g) . (h) (i) any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
