TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and there is suspicion against each of the appellant and on the basis of that suspicion, the appellants have been imposed penalties. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in various decisions consistently held that for imposing the personal penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, there should be acceptable legal evidence on record about the acts of commission or omission by the appellant. Further in order to hold that the appellant has abetted in the commission of the offence, there has to be a knowledge on the part of the appellant regarding the illegal activities of the exporter whereas in the present case no corroborative evidence has come on record which pinpoint that the appellant had the knowledge of the illegal activities of the exporter company. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20053/2020, C/20054/2020, C/20055/2020 - Final Order Nos. 20618-20620/2020 - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. G.B. Eswarappa, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. Devara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the entire transaction of illegal export, the original authority imposed penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on each of the appellant under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. On further appeal before the Commissioner, the penalty on the appellant Venugopal was reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and on the other appellants namely Sachin Kumar and Ravichandra to ₹ 50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under the provisions of Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the evidence and the various decisions on the same issue. He further submitted that the appellants rendered their routine service of arranging for container and CHA service to earn for their livelihood within the bounds of law. He further submitted that Shri Hashim, Director of exporter company made statements on 21/08/2014, 22/08/2014 and 16/09/2014 to the effect that he was responsible for smuggling of red sander wood logs and the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Bang.) d. V.K. Singh Vs. CC, Hyderabad 2010 (253) E.L.T 685 (Tri.-Bang.) e. Giavudan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore 2010 (261) E.L.T. 975 (Tri.-Bang.) f. Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin 2007 (211) E.L.T. 291 (Tri.-Bang.) g. Kiran S Dixit Vs. CC, Hyderabad 2014 (301) E.L.T 337 (Tri.-Bang.) h. Dwarknath Padhy Vs. CC, Hyderabad 2007 (209) E.L.T. 376 (Tri.-Bang.) i. Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2003 (154) E.L.T. 756 (Tri.-Chennai) j. Vetri Impex Vs. CC, Tuticorin 2004 (172) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.-Chennai) k. Maheshwari Rocks (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2010 (262) E.L.T. 574 (Tri.-Chennai) l. Parvez J Irani Vs. CC (Export) JNCH, Nhava Sheva 2016 (333) E.L.T. 333 (Tri.-Mumbai) m. Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai 2000 (122) E.L.T. 737 (Tri.) n. CC, Mumbai Vs. M. Vasi 2003 (151) E.L.T. 312 (Tri.-Mum.) o. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. Vs. CC, Mangalore 2013 (293) E.L.T. 616 (Tri.-Bang.) p. Jeena Co. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs 1992 (58) E.L.T. 276 (Tribunal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranged the CHA and the container. Further, I find that the goods were stuffed at the KSDL factory, Bangalore in the presence of Mr. Hashim, Director of the exporter company and Superintendent of Central Excise and thereafter it was sent to Mangalore and from Mangalore it was exported. Subsequently, DRI got intelligence that the exported goods were falsely decalred as Mysore Detergent Cakes by illegally concealing read sanders and thereafter the vessel containing the container was called back from Columbo and it was seized by the DRI. During the investigation DRI recorded the statement of Mr. Hashim, Director of exporter company and also the appellants. In the statement of Mr. Hashim, he has clearly stated that he was responsible for smuggling of red sander wood logs and the appellants were not knowing about their smuggling plan. All these appellants were based at Mangalore whereas the truck was stuffed with Mysore Detergent Cake at Bangalore in the presence of the Director of the company and the Superintendent of Central Excise. Further, I find that both the authorities in their orders have admitted that there is no direct proof of the complicity of the appellants and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
