9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Non-availability of goods for export and imposition of fine under Section 132 of the Customs Act - Discrepancies in the appellant's submission regarding the transportation of goods - Allegations of mala fide intention in availing DEPB credit - Failure to notify the Customs House Agent (CHA) about missing consignment - Justification of fine imposition and reduction by the Tribunal - Imposition of penalty without prior proposal in the show cause notice Analysis: The case involved the appellants filing three bills of export for the export of goods to Bangladesh, where a physical examination revealed that goods from one bill were missing. The appellants claimed that the missing goods were dispatched by rail from Salem but not delivered due to railway lapse. They argued that subsequent exports were made under a fresh bill of export. The Commissioner (Appeals) doubted the appellant's claim, stating the goods were purchased at Salem and dispatched by a transporter in Calcutta. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to notify the CHA about the missing consignment, indicating a possible mala fide intention to avail DEPB credit without expecting the goods. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and upheld the fine imposed under Section 132 of the Customs Act for filing a bill of export without presenting the goods. Despite subsequent exports, the offense remained. The Tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 10,000 based on the overall circumstances. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's advocate that as there was no proposal in the show cause notice for penalty imposition, it was beyond the notice's scope. Thus, the penalty imposition was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
