TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, the same were exported at the same value - there was negligence and carelessness on the part of main appellant and the CHA which has rendered the goods liable for confiscation. The redemption fine and penalty imposed are excessive on the face of the fact there was exportation of the same goods at the same value at a latter stage and undisputedly not questioned - Accordingly holding that goods are liable for confiscation, the redemption fine imposed is reduced to Rupees one lakh and consequent penalty to ₹ 50,000/- on the main appellant. As regards penalty imposed on the CHA, the same is u/s 114 of Customs Act - there is no act, omission or commission on the part of CHA which would have rendered the goods liable for confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012. Hon'ble High Court disposed of the appeal by judgement dated 20 th March 2014, setting aside the Tribunal s final order dated 3 rd February 2012 and remanding the same to decide issue afresh. 5. On perusal of records it transpires that main appellant herein has entered for export goods by filing two Shipping Bills dated 18 th June 2009, along with documents like ARE-1, Airway bill, Invoices etc. At the time of examination on 20 th June 2009 it was found that description, marks and as given in the invoice and Shipping Bills did not tally with that mentioned on the two plastic drums. In view of discrepancy samples were drawn and sent for analysis; statements of various persons were recorded on a suspicion that the goods may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 114AA of the Custom Act, 1962. - and Shri Bharat Padia, the Executive Director and Shri Stephen Coelho, Vice-President of M/s Dishman and Shri M M Ruparel, the CHA of M/s M D Ruparel Sons (CHA No.11/244), were asked to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Appellant denied the allegations on the ground of genuine human error due to wrong labelling and also due to error on the part of CHA. The second appellant also denied allegation by taking a defence that they presented the goods as they were received hence penalty is not imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Adjudicating authority after following due process of law come to a conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same value. We note that adjudicating authority in the impugned order in paragraph No.39(w) has recorded that there was negligence and carelessness on the part of main appellant and the CHA which has rendered the goods liable for confiscation. After coming to such a conclusion the adjudicating authority passed the following order. a) The value of goods exported under S/B No.7308538 dated 16.06.2009 declared as FOB ₹ 1,99,08,000/- is determined as ₹ 1,77,84,000/-. These goods are held liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on the counts of being mis-declared in description and value terms, but not confiscated. b) The value of the goods attempted to be exported under S/Bs No.7311377 and 7311 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for export initially which were exported subsequently by making correct declarations as to description and value. In our view the findings recorded by adjudicating authority that there was mis-declaration is correct; however the redemption fine and penalty imposed are excessive on the face of the fact there was exportation of the same goods at the same value at a latter stage and undisputedly not questioned. Accordingly holding that goods are liable for confiscation, we reduce the redemption fine imposed to Rupees one lakh and consequent penalty to ₹ 50,000/- on the main appellant. As regards penalty imposed on the CHA we find the same is under Section 114 of Customs Act. We do not find any act, omission or commission on the part of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
