9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Red Sanders, totally weighing of 13220 Kg and valued of Rs. 5,94,90,000,were seized. Investigation was conducted and Show Cause Notice dated 01/10/2014 was issued to various parties including appellant. The Show Cause Notice were adjudicated vide OIO No.03-Cus/JC/DRI/2015 dated 30/04/2015 by Joint Commissioner inter alia imposed Penalty of Rs. 30, 00,000 on the appellant. On an appeal, filed by the Appellant, Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in- Appeal No. 83-84/Pat/Cus/ Appeal/ 2015, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 3. Revenue preferred an appeal to CESTAT and this Bench while setting aside the Order of the Commissioner (appeals), reduced the Penalty imposed on the Appellant by the Original Authority from Rs. 30, 00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process and clear the documents on behalf of the Exporters without verifying the bona fides of the exporter; Shri Nakul Prasad, Export Executive of the Appellants has accepted that they have dealt with Shri Sujan Sharma; received payment in cash; however, they have been receiving payments from others only through check: they do not know exporter and have accepted to process the documents at the behest of Shri Sujan Sharma. 6. The brief issue for consideration in the current proceedings is directed by Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata to see whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there is sufficient reasoning has been given by this bench while imposing penalty of Rs. 15, 00,000 on the appellant. 7. On a re-appreciation of the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whichever is the greater; (iii) In the case of any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater. We find that as per the above, in order to be liable for penalty, in terms of Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, a person has to do or omit to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abet the doing or omission of such an act. Going by the wordings of the Section, it is apparent that there should be positive act or omission or abatement on the part of the Appellant so as to render him liable for penalty. We find that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also fake or otherwise. Therefore, we find that accepting the documents from Shri Sujan Sharma and receiving payment in cash do not in themselves constitute an offence punishable under Customs Act, 1962. We find that no case has been made by the department that there was some positive act or abetment of the smuggling by the appellant. In fact as a Customs Broker, his role has not even begun as the said goods have been apprehended well before they reached the port. There is no whisper leave alone evidence that the appellant was aware of the fact that Red Sanders logs were stuffed in the container and were to be exported in the consignment for which they have received authorization. In view of the above, it is seen that the appellant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
