Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (3) TMI 654

e of their complicity in the act of attempt to illegal export of Red Sanders wood, penalty u/s 114(i) cannot be sustained. - Penalty imposed on M/s Raghuvir Singh & Sons - Held that: - merely authorizing M/s Chirag Enterprises to undertake the transportation from CWC-CFS-Gandhidham to the Port area, it was within the knowledge of the Appellant that the Roofing Tiles would be replaced with Red Sander Woods by the Proprietor of M/s Chirag Enterprises, Sh. Dev Kumar Kapta at Jamadar Wadi - penalty on M/s Raghuvir Singh & Sons u/s 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 also not sustainable. - Penalty u/s 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on the CHA M/s Act Forwarders and M/s Raghuvir Singh & Sons - Held that: - the Sh. Dev Kumar Kapta has not been charged as a repeated Offender, to meet the ends of justice, penalty imposed on him is reduced to ₹ 5.00 lakhs - Appeals filed by M/s Act Forwarders and M/s Raghuvir Singh & Sons are allowed. - Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/53, 69, 134/2009-SM - Final Order No. A/ 10439-10441 /2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : Mr. Derrick G. and Hardik Modh (Advocates) For the Respondent : Mr. A. Mis .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

and they had not authorized him to sign any shipping bill or bills of entry on their behalf. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty on M/s Dev Kumar Kapta observing that he had signed the shipping bill without authorization from the appellant CHA. Simultaneously, Commissioner had imposed penalty on the appellant observing that they had allowed Mr. Dev Kumar Kapta to sign the shipping bill, therefore, the findings of the Commissioner are contradictory in nature, hence, liable to be set aside. Further, he has submitted that there is neither any evidence nor even an allegation that the appellant knew that the Rad Sander Woods would be exported by replacing the Roofing Tiles using their license. It is undisputed fact that when the goods were moved from CFS, the container was stuffed with Roofing Tiles which was replaced with Red Sander Woods on the way to the Port at Jamadar Wadi. The statements of various persons were recorded in connection with the said replacements. None of them had implicated the appellant in the said offence. Further, he has submitted that the appellant has not done any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

not mean that the appellant Sh. Dev Kumar Kapta had knowledge that the goods would be replaced with Red Sander Woods on its way to Mundra Port at Jamadar Wadi. From the statement of Sh. Himmat Visanji Joshi owner of the farm Jamadar Wadi and the statement of the Drivers of the truck, no one had implicated him in the offence of replacement of tiles with Red Sander Woods at Jamadar Wadi. Thus, the appellant had no knowledge about the said act and hence, imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act,1962 is without any evidence against the appellant having knowledge of such replacement of Roofing Tiles with Red Sander Woods cannot be sustained. In support, he has referred to the following judgments. * Maheshwari Rocks (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C. 2010 (262) ELT 574 (T) * Skyline Shipping & Logistics Vs C.C. 2010 (262) ELT 985 (T) * C.Ashok Kumar vs C.C. 2010 (262) ELT 321 (T) * I.Sahaya Edin Prabhu vs C.C. 2008 (222) ELT 308 (T) * C.C. vs I. Sahaya Edin Prabhu 2015 (320) ELT 264 (Mad.) * Kavia Carbons Vs C. C. 2009 (213) ELT 547 (T) * Maruti Transporters vs C.C. 2004 (177) ELT 1051 (T) 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. 6. Heard bot .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

sor/Assistant employed by his proprietorship firm M/s. Chirag Enterprise that even as he would receive phone calls on his mobile phone from Shri Pradeep, he (Shri Santosh Kumar Moode) should not make any enquiry about his (Shri Pradeep s) address and whereabouts. In all, Shri Pradeep called Shri Santosh Kumar Mood 38 time prior to 11.7.2006 and made 7 calls on 11.7.2006 (date on which container stuffed with roofing tiles at CWC-CFS left CWC-CFS for MICT, Mundra.) Thus, he instructed his site supervisor working in the field that he should not probe from Shri Pradeep about his address and whereabouts. This indicates that Shri Devkumar Kapta never wanted any other person to know about the residential address of Shri Pradeep. He also did not want anyone to know about the specific location of Shri Pradeep. Shri Devkumar Kapta knew that Shri Pradeep was indulging in some illicit activity. Other wise, if the entire transaction was bona fide, there was no reason for Shri Devkumar Kapta to give specific instructions to his staff not to make any enquiry about Shri Pradeep. It is evident from the above that Shri Devkumar Kapta, by performing a multi-dimensional role which went beyond that of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ev Kumar Kapta has actively involved in the attempt to illegal export of Red Sander Woods. 9. As far as the CHA M/s Act Forwarders is concerned, the Ld. Commissioner observed that they had authorized Sh. Dev Kumar Kapta for operating on behalf of them in the Dock Area and handling documents through letter dt. 19.05.2006, which also they denied. I do not find justification in penalizing them under Sec.114(i) of CA,1962 in view of series of judgments of this Tribunal and courts including in the case of Commissioner of Cus.(Exports), Chennai Vs. I. Sahaya Edin Prabhu 2015 (320) ELT 264 (Mad.), Swaroop Shipping Services Vs. C.C.(Exports)Chennai 2008 (227) ELT 555(Tri.-Chennai) and Neptune Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus.(Exports), Chennai 2007 (219) ELT 673 (Tri.-Chennai) where under it has been consistently held that for the act of negligence on the part of CHA, penalty cannot be imposed under 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962, as proceedings could be initiated under the CHALR, 2004. In the present case the acts of the CHA could at best be charged for violation of the CHALR,2004 but in absence of evidence of their complicity in the act of attempt to illegal export of Red Sanders wo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||