TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is required from the Competent Authority i.e. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior in terms of Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. The defence of the appellant that he was not aware of the requirement of law to obtain export authorization from the Competent Authority before exporting the said goods is not tenable in law in view of the specific provisions made in the NDPS Act with regard to export of goods falling in the schedule of psychotropic substances of NDPS Act, 1985 - the defence of the appellant that previously no objection was raised by the customs authorities and he has been exporting the said goods for the last 7-8 years is not a proper defence to justify the export o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICD/CFS, Ludhiana. The details of exports of Alprazolam Tablets made by the appellant are given in table herein below:- Sr. No. Shipping Bill No. Date Quanitity (Number of boxes) Value (Rs.) ICS/CFS 1 00321 26.07.2008 2160 161406 OWPL, Ludhiana 2. 1106716 03.11.2008 3240 241299 OWPL, Ludhiana 3. 1116669 20.01.2009 7230 431643 OWPL, Ludhiana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant also appeared liable to penal action in terms of Section 114(i) of the Act. 2.3 On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 01.05.2015 was issued to the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority as to why the penalty should not be imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.4 After following due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 15.02.2016 imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.5 Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2.6 Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 in the instant appeal and the other connected appeals. Consequently, this appeal and other connected appeals filed by the appellant have to be dismissed being time barred.. 4.1 On the other hand, Learned Authorized Representative defended the impugned order and submitted that the exported goods fall in the schedule of psychotropic substances of NDPS Act, 1985 and thus export authorization was required in terms of Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He further submits that Alprazolam tablet has been mentioned at Sr. No. 30 of the schedule of psychotropic substances and the salt thereof at Sr. No. 111 of the NDPS Act. 4.2 Learned Authorized Representative also took me through Rule 58 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable for confiscation which is clearly satisfied in the present case. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record and the decisions relied upon by both sides, I find that admittedly in the present case, the appellant has exported Alprazolam tablets which fall in the schedule of psychotropic substances of NDPS Act, 1985 and is mentioned at Sr. No. 30 of the schedule of Psychotropic and the salt thereof at Sr. No. 111 of the Act for which the export authorization is required from the Competent Authority i.e. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior in terms of Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. 5.1 The defence of the appellant that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty has been rightly proposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act and no limitation of 5 years has been prescribed under both the sections. 5.5 Further, I find that clearances in the past cannot be justified subsequent exports which are prohibited according to the provisions of law and required authorization for its exports. 5.6 Further, I also hold that under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act under which penalty has been imposed in this case, does not require intend to be proved and the only condition that has to be satisfied is that the goods should be liable for confiscation which is clearly satisfied in the present case. 5.7 In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
