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

M/s. Ashoke Enamel & Glass Work Pvt. Ltd., Sri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Director Versus Commissioner, Customs (Port) , Kolkata

2016 (10) TMI 292 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Imposition of penalties u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - export of glass chimneys after verification and inspection - seal of container found broken - illegal export of Red Sanders were sought to be done under the cover of the appellant's documents of export - Held that: - Penalties u/s 114 are imposable upon the person who in relation to any goods does omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to be confiscated under Section 113 or abetted doing or omission of such act. - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llants. But the same will not make the appellant a party to attempt to export of contraband goods. - The decision in the case of Air India-vs.- Commr.of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (5) TMI 858 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] relied upon where it was held that negligence alone is not enough for imposition of penalty. - Imposition of penalties not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. C/75465-75466/2015 - Order No. FO/A/76096-97/16 - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

njay Singh having telephone no.8145543052 and Email ID. Sanjaysingh347@yahoo.in. Shri Sanjay Singh nominated M/s. National Agency as a Customs House Agent and M/s. A.G.S.World Transport (I) Pvt. Ltd. as freight forwarder and authorized agent and M/s. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. The appellants appointed National Agency to be its Customs House Agent on the request of Shri Sanjay Singh. One container bearing No.OOLU1218170 was sent by Mr.Singh to the appellant factory premises for the purpo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l of the shipping company bearing No.OOLBPB0363 was duly mentioned. After the container left the appellant s premises the appellant received an intimation by e-mail from Mr. Sanjay Singh that the order was placed for 1,000 boxes and since the quantum exported is lesser, the Custom House Agent should be instructed to withhold the container. The appellant instructed the Custom House Agent to act on the instruction of Mr. Sanjay Singh. 3. On 19.09.2012 the container was intercepted and the seal of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd also one of its Director. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri S.K.Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that there is no provision under the Customs Act that monitoring of container movements from appellants premises till export are required to be undertaken by the appellants. That such responsibility is cast on multimodal transportation operator under Section 13 of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993. That under this Act, no responsibility for any transport .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, when the appellants had no knowledge that any contraband or Red Sanders Woods were found in transit before export. Ld. Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that no penalty is imposable. (i) A.K.Saha-vs.-Commr.of Customs (P), Calcutta[2001(136) E.L.T.303(Tri.-Kolkata). (ii) Dhakad Metal Corporation-vs.-Commr.of C.Ex.& S.T., Daman[2015(330) E.L.T. 561(Tri.-Ahmd.)] (iii) Air India-vs.-Commr. Of Customs, Mumbai[2001(137) E.L.T. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de the bench go through paragraph-26 of OIO dated 23.02.2015 to argue that no person by the name Shri Sanjay Singh actually existed and Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala only attempted to export the consignment in connivance with some other known and unknown persons. Ld. AR very strongly defended the adjudication order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether penalties have been corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the seal and container are broken. The Adjudicating Authority has held the appellants responsible for the negligence. It is observed from Section 13 of Multimodal Transportation of Goods Acts, 1993, relied upon by the appellants, that such responsibility regarding any loss/damage or delay in delivery of consignment lies with the multimodal transport operator as defined in Section 2(m) of this Act. 7. There is also nothing in the Customs Act, 1962, that the exporter is required to monitor th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

toring the export consignment can only be attributed on the part of the appellants. But the same will not make the appellant a party to attempt to export of contraband goods. As already mentioned, appellants had no knowledge of the contraband being carried out in the said container stuffed in their presence. 8. But this issue of imposition of penalty CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Kiran S.Dixit-vs.- Commr. Of Customs, Hyderabad (Supra) held as follows: 5. The extracted portion of the statement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the Customs on proper documents. The appellants do not exercise control over transportation of containers. The only aspect that is verified when the container is handed over back is whether it is damaged or not. Once the container is not damaged, it again enters into the trading channels for stuffing and destuffing and moves from place to place. After going through the statement of the appellant and the circumstances under which the container has been intercepted, I find that there is no evide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant and as can be seen from the facts and circumstances, there is no evidence forthcoming to show that the appellant had given any assistance in the attempted export of red sanders. In my opinion, negligence on the part of the appellant has not been proved by the Revenue. Under these circumstances, a penalty imposed on the appellant has to be set aside and the same is set aside. In the result the stay application as well as appeal are allowed. 8.1. Similar view has been expressed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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