TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the marketing staff to export the prohibited items - HELD THAT:- In this case prohibited items are being exported but the same was intercepted. The only defense of the appellant was that export was done by the Marketing Manager without his knowledge and consent and he had not given any instruction to his Marketing staff to export the prohibited items. This defense does not inspire confidence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and marketing of various food products. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant as to why the rice and wheat products should not be confiscated under Section 113(d)(e)(h) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and imposing a penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) each on the appellant and on Mr. Anto Kurien under [Sections] 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants have paid the redemption fine and penalties and have challenged only the penalty while filing this appeal. 3. Heard both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only defense of the appellant is that he had no knowledge of the said export which was done by the Marketing Manager without his knowledge. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in this case prohibited items are being exported but the same was intercepted. The only defense of the appellant was that export was done by the Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
