TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 114 of the Customs Act. 2. The appellants had filed a shipping bill dated 7-8-99, on behalf of M/s. Sterling Exports, for export of 393 wrist watches under DEPB Scheme. The declared value of the wrist watches was US$ 28 (Rs. 1208/-) per piece. After examination of samples of the goods followed by market inquiries, the customs authorities booked a case of over-invoicing against the exporter and one of abetment of the said offence against the CHA. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued to the exporter and the CHA. As against CHA (the present appellant), the show-cause notice alleged that the CHA had helped the exporter in the latter's attempt to export the overvalued goods for the purpose of taking higher DEPB credit with intent to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were prohibited for exportation. According to the ld. Consultant, the goods brought to Customs area for exportation could be held to be liable to confiscation only after such goods were found to be prohibited for exportation under the Customs Act or under any other law for the time being in force. But there is no such finding in the impugned order and, therefore, the order for confiscation of the goods under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act is itself un-sustainable. Apart from this, ld. Consultant submits that there is no finding that any commission or omission of the appellant rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Therefore, Section 114 of the Customs Act was wrongly invoked against the appellant for imposition of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1973, the exporter had to declare the export value true in all material particulars and that, in the absence of such declaration, the goods became prohibited for exportation. According to ld. JDR, the declared value of the goods was very high when compared to the market price of identical goods and, therefore, the declared value was not true in material particulars and such untrue declaration rendered the goods prohibited for exportation. This prohibition attracted Section 11 of the Customs Act as well and, consequently, Section 113 (d) and 114 of the Customs Act became applicable. The ld. JDR submits that the CHA had an obligation to ensure the correctness of the value of the goods and to ensure that the declared particulars were true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date to importers and exporters and not to CHAs. Therefore, the allegation of contravention of Section 11 (1) of the 1992 Act also cannot be sustained. Numerous statements of the exporter were recorded by the Customs officers before issuing the show-cause notice to the appellant. All those statements have been referred to in the impugned order, as well. However, none of the statements contains anything incriminating against the present appellant. The statements, insofar as they relate to the present appellant, are only to the effect that the exporter had filed the export documents through the appellant. The exporter has never stated that the value of the goods or any other material particulars relating to the goods were entered in the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
