9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant being a CHA, should not face such an exorbitant penalty in absence of his conscious involvement in the allege attempt to export. 2. On the other hand, learned AR submits that a racket of red sander operated smuggling thereof and with the connivance of this appellant, attempted export of red sander logs which is a prohibited goods and were brought to record by Customs. This appellant was an active member of such racket. Learned adjudicating authority very succinctly brought out role of the appellant in attempted export for which he does not deserve any consideration for reduction of penalty. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4.1 Association of this appellant with the racket of the smugglers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he export made through shipping Bill 3525348 dated 22.10.2009 and Shipping Bill No. 3538629 dated 5.11.2009. Learned adjudicating authority upon examination of the entire material before him noticed that this appellant could not detach himself from the deal of attempted export of the red sanders. He therefore imposed penalty on several persons. Revenue says that two of the masterminds i.e., Satish Babu and Sai Senthil Kumar came in Appeal No. C97 & 98/2012. But their appeals were dismissed on 3.7.2014 for non-compliance to the stay order. 7. Para 43.2 of the adjudication order reveals that the appellant made contacts with the members of the racket for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to attempt export of red sanders. It cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 117 of Customs Act, 1962. In this case active role of appellant in the attempted export is on record and that could not be ruled out by appellant demolishing fraudulent document filed by appellant using IE code of another. The penalty under Section 117 is stricter than Section 114 penalty. Any dereliction in duty by the CHA calls for penalty under the residuary provisions of Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority noticing that the appellant was a member of the racket having received the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to abett smuggling he rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. From the facts and circumstances, conscious involvement of the appellant with the smuggling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
