9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Export of prohibited item under guise of permissible item, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty without license for export.
Summary: Issue 1: Export of prohibited item under guise of permissible item The appellant exported Potassium Chloride under the guise of non-fertilizer grade, but it was found to be fertilizer grade, a prohibited item under Section 11 of the Customs Act. The goods were seized as they did not have a license to export fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride. The test report confirmed the goods were fertilizer grade, leading to absolute confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act and imposition of a penalty of &8377; 9 lakhs under Section 114(i). Issue 2: Confiscation of goods The Deputy Chief Chemist's test report conclusively established that the exported goods were indeed fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride. Despite the appellant's claim of inconclusiveness due to missing details like particle size and sodium content, the report was deemed sufficient. The absence of export documents from the previous exporter, M/s. Delcray Cables Pvt. Ltd., further weakened the appellant's position. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 113(d) and the penalty under Section 114(i). Issue 3: Imposition of penalty without license for export The appellant's argument of being unaware of the goods' prohibited nature due to reliance on the previous exporter was dismissed. The Tribunal cited precedent that exporting restricted items without a license constitutes export of prohibited goods under the Customs Act. The imposed penalty of &8377; 9 lakhs was considered reasonable, well below the permissible limit of three times the goods' value. Attempted export in contravention of law still attracts liability to confiscation and penalty, as established in previous Tribunal cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, leading to its dismissal, upholding the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant.
|
