TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders through whom he had received the work as well as the documents for KYC. At no stage, the appellant CHA received the documents directly from the office of the exporter. It has been rightly concluded in the final order that though this appellant and others have not made any big gain, in the attempted export of the prohibited goods, by the exporter. However, there has been element of negligence and/or vigilance on their part which has facilitated attempted exported of prohibited goods. There is no error in the final order - there is no merit in the RoM application, the same is dismissed. - Customs Rectification of Mistake Application No. 50577 of 2021 (on behalf of the appellant) in Customs Appeal No. 52234 of 2019-SM - MISCELLANE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned final order after appreciating the evidences and allegations and their defence observed that these appellants have not made profits and/or participated in the profits to be made in the export of prohibited goods. Rather these persons were doing work only on normal remuneration basis. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the penalty from ₹ 8 lakhs to ₹ 80,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel states that this appellant is aggrieved with the following observation in para 19 of the Final Order, which reads as under:- further they have similarly facilitated the export of about eight consignments in the recent past and there is reasonable belief that such consignments also had prohibited goods. 5. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue opposes the RoM application and urges that he same be dismissed. He further states that the appellant is trying for review / rehearing of the appeal, which is not permissible. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and after going through the record, I find that it has been recorded in the final order that the appellant Custom Broker inspite of having already handled eight export consignment in the past, till the inspection of the 9th consignment, has never met the exporter or the owner of M/s Fashion World, nor he had met any of the relevant person(s) namely Reyaz Ahmed @Rajbir @ Dharmender, who repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
