2014 (3) TMI 14 - AT - Customs

Penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA - Mis declaration of goods - export of fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash - MOP) by declaring it as industrial salt, chemical grade (sodium chloride) - Held that - all the persons on several occasions had stated the appellant s name and there is a material evidence like invoice and shipping bill, where the appellant s sister s address is mentioned. The appellant failed to give any satisfactory explanation for use of the sister s address except disowning the goods and denial the contents of statement of co-noticees. In my considered view the material evidence available in this case are sufficient for imposition of penalty on the appellant. Section 114AA provides penalty for use of false and incorrect material. It is evident that M/s. Sharmi Export Co. signed or used the declaration of export of goods. The charge in this case is mainly that the appellant does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) is justified - I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and uphold the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Allegations of irregular export and false declaration.
- Involvement of appellant in attempt to export restricted item.

Analysis:

Imposition of Penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA:
The appellant, Managing Director of M/s. Sri Chemicals, appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the mis-declaration of fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride as industrial salt for export. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on the appellant and other co-noticees. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order.

Allegations of Irregular Export and False Declaration:
The appellant's defense focused on disowning the goods and denying involvement with the co-noticees. The appellant's counsel argued that the exporter falsely used the appellant's sister's address in the export documents, emphasizing lack of corroboration and reliance on statements without concrete evidence. The appellant also cited suffering in jail and vision loss during the ordeal.

Involvement of Appellant in Attempted Export of Restricted Item:
The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including statements from co-noticees implicating the appellant, invoices, and shipping bills indicating the appellant's sister's address. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the use of the address, despite disowning the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the material evidence supported the imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 114AA and upheld the penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed, acknowledging the involvement in the attempted irregular export of the restricted item.