9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), which were loaded in a lorry/truck bearing Registration No. TN 63 AB 7825 along with bags of cabbage worth Rs. 10,000/-. There was no document for transportation of the entire goods nor was there any claim as to the ownership of either the lorry or the goods and therefore, the lorry/truck was seized along with the goods. The Revenue got the goods examined by the Forest Range Officer, Thoothukudi Range, who certified that the same was red sanders logs which is a prohibited item for export. All the seized goods i.e., the truck, the red sanders logs and the cabbage bags were handed over to the Customs House, Tuticorin on 10.10.2013. 3. The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, summoned all the five above persons, who were travelling in the car at the time of interception and their statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It appears that Revenue tried to ascertain the ownership of the aforesaid truck, with the Registration No. TN 63 AB 7825, which carried the contraband, but the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original has given a clear finding that it was a fake registration number fitted on the seized lorry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Order-in-Appeal dated 19.04.2016 rejected the appeals thereby upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Seriously aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appellants viz., Shri. Karuppiah @ Manoharan and Shri. Ravi. K. Sadanand are before this forum by these appeals. 6. Heard Shri. A. Thiyagarajan, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing for the Revenue and perused the documents placed in the appeal paper book and also gone through the documents referred to by both the parties, during the course of hearing. 7. The only issue to be decided is whether the Revenue was justified in levying penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that primarily the penalty has been levied based solely on the inculpatory statements. The other submissions of the Ld. Advocate could be summarized as under:- (i) The appellants never claimed themselves to be the owner of the goods that was seized; (ii) The appellants are not the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early explained not only the whole transaction but also named various persons involved, in the smuggling activity and has also clearly identified the destination i.e., foreign buyer M/s. Haiphong Petro Trading JSC, No. 782, Chua Ve, Doana, 2nd Street, Dong Hai, 1 Ward, Hai An Dist. HP, Vietnam. 10.2 Shri Karuppiah, the second appellant, also explains the involvement of one Shri. Subba Reddy, one of the brokers, one Shri. Saleem of Tirunelveli whose mobile Nos. were 7299508440 & 9786860485, who arranged the overseas buyer for a commission of Rs. 3,00,000/- per MT; Mr. Ravi of Bangalore, who was into the red sanders business, who according to the appellant, had agreed to store 8 MTs of red sanders in Bangalore; Shri. Senthil Ram of Chennai, Lorry broker who was to transport red sanders logs to Bangalore, who also sent lorry bearing Registration No. TN 63 7825 to Bangalore, etc. Further, this appellant has also explained that Shri. Ravi having loaded the logs of red sanders in the lorry was called by Shri. Saleem to get the logs of red sanders near the District Collector's office in Virudhunagar etc. 10.3 The above statement of this appellant matches with that of the first appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not see any reasons to interfere with the meticulous findings of the Original Authority as upheld vide impugned Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Tiruchirappalli. In this connection, I find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC, Trichy Vs. S. Janarthanan [2015 (325) E.L.T. 510 (Mad.)] is useful in this regard, wherein it has been held as under:- "12. Admittedly, the goods attempted to be exported are prohibited under the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act and the EXIM Policy 1997-02. Since Sandalwood was attempted to be exported in the guise of roofing tiles, the provisions made under Section 113 of the Customs Act gets attracted. Similarly, the goods entered for exportation did not correspond in respect of value or in any material particulars with the entry made under the Act. On this admitted fact, the only question arises for consideration is whether the respondent is liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 13. The wording in Section 114 of the Customs Act is clear that any person who, in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render the goods lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
