TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or NOC but it was a futile exercise as they did not have importer country’s permit for said Narcotic Drug without which, CBN can not issue NOC – malafide intention on the part of appellant – confiscation of goods, denial of DEPB and penalty under section 114(i) justified. Mis-declaration of goods – imposition of penalty – section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that: - there is no mis-declaration on the part of appellant exporter either in respect of description of goods or value – penalty not imposed. Imposition of penalty – CHA – involvement of CHA in the attempt to export the goods without NOC – Held that: - no mis-declaration found on the part of CHA. It was the client who suppressed the fact of NOC not from custom but als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n submission of documents for export, the Shipping Bill No. 7123488 dated 30.06.2008 was generated. After, 15 days, since the previously generated Shipping Bill expired, they filed for another check list and were allotted Shipping Bill No. 7124572 dated 14.07.2008. After verification of the goods by Assistant Drugs Controller at Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH), it was found that the goods Alprazolam Tablets (18 cartons valued at ₹ 1,05,952/-) is a Narcotic Psychotropic substance and not permitted for export without NOC from Narcotic Commissioner, Gwalior (M.P.). However the appellant exporter could not produce NOC fro Narcotic Commissioner, CBN, Gwalior. During enquiry of the case, the appellants partner in the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued to the appellant exporter, CHA, partners of appellant and Director of CHA proposing confiscation of 18 cartons of Alprazolam Tablets valued ₹ 1,05,952/- and penalties on all the noticees. In the adjudication, the adjudicating authority passed the following order: ORDER 24. In view of the above facts and findings, I pass the following order: (i) I confiscate 18 CTNs of ) Alprazolam tablets, FOB value ₹ 1,05,952/- absolutely since the importer failed to produce CBN, Gwaliors licence for export of restricted Narcotic drugs under the Shipping Bill No. 7124572 dated 14.07.2008 under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. (ii) DEPB amount of ₹ 6,356/- (rupees six thousand three hundred and fifty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior is required. When they came to know about this requirement, they applied for NOC on 26.06.2008 i.e. before dispatch of the goods from Panipat to Mumbai. Due to communication gap between the appellant and CHA, goods were carted at CFS, Bhiwandi and then Shipping Bill was filed for export. He submits that since the appellant already applied for NOC of CBN, there was no mala fide intention on their part. He submits that the appellant did not have any intention to export the goods without obtaining NOC from CBN, Gwalior as their application for the same was pending. He submits that in the given circumstances, the appellant exporter is not liable for any penal action. He also submits that there is no mis-declaration of description or va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from CBN and consequent penalties. I find that there is no dispute that the goods, namely Alprazolam tablets attempted to be exported is a psychotropic substance and the same requires NOC from CBN, Gwalior for export. Admittedly when Shipping Bill was filed appellant did not produce the required NOC. The appellant in earlier case of export, for other drugs, obtained NOC. In the present case also appellant had applied for NOC vide their letter dated 26.06.2008 i.e. before dispatch of the goods from Panipat to Mumbai. However the appellant suppressed this fact from CHA as well as from Custom Authority. It is only, when Assistant Drugs Controller at JNCH verified, it was revealed that there is no NOC and the same is required. It is sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no mis-declaration. On pointing out by the custom regarding NOC for Alprazolam tablet, the CHA immediately informed their client. It is the client M/s. Laborate Pharmaceuticals (India) who suppressed the fact of NOC not from custom but also from CHA. There is nothing on record to show the involvement of the CHA in attempt to export of psychotropic substance without NOC of CBN. Therefore in my considered view the CHA can not be implicated in the present case. I therefore drop the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed upon CHA M/s. Swift Cleford Agency Pvt. Ltd. In result the appeal of M/s. Laborate Pharmaceutical (India) is partly allowed in the above terms. The appeal filed by M/s. Swift Celford Agency Pvt. Ltd. is allowed. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
