TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h follow from Sections 113 and 114 of the said Act, cannot be avoided - However, what still remains to be examined by us is the justification behind the adjudicating authority in imposing a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the appellant before us, while all others, including the individual who has misused the IEC of the appellant and also the Customs House Agent, were imposed with lesser punishment of penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Section 114 of the said Act has provided for discretion in the hands of the Adjudicating Authority to impose a penalty, which can go up to three times the value of the intended goods to be exported. Therefore, it is axiomatic that such a discretion should be exercised on sound lines. When discretion has been use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that too for a consideration, though for a very insignificant amount. 3. A shipping bill for export has been lodged on 23rd November 2009, in the name of the appellant herein and the Customs House Agent being M/s.Anchorage Shipping, Coimbatore. The goods intended to be exported are described as 'Incense Raw Material' of 20.50 Metric Tonnes. Upon verification of the goods, a suspicion has arisen as to whether the goods are raw material of incense sticks or under the guise of the said description and classification, prohibited goods are being exported. Fifteen sample packets were collected and five of them have been sent for examination and for reporting by the Institute of Wood Science and Technology (IWST), Indian Council of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 114 of the said Act, any person who chooses or omits to do any act, which act has rendered the goods liable for confiscation, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the Exporter or the value as determined under the said Act, whichever is greater. Consequently, the appellant has also exposed himself to the liability of imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the said Act. 6. All through, the burden of song of the appellant before us was that it is not he, who has physically lodged the impugned shipping bill of export and someone unauthorizedly used his name and IEC for filing such a Bill of Shipping and that he is not in the know or aware of the scheme of export undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also the Customs House Agent, were imposed with lesser punishment of penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Thus the appellant has been singled out for the imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-, even though this explanation was used to penalise the abuser of the IEC. 10. As we have noticed, Section 114 of the said Act has provided for discretion in the hands of the Adjudicating Authority to impose a penalty, which can go up to three times the value of the intended goods to be exported. Therefore, it is axiomatic that such a discretion should be exercised on sound lines. When discretion has been used while imposing the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on all others, the same does not appear to have been exercised properly and even handed manner. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
