2018 (2) TMI 1270 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 (i) of CA 1962 on main appellant and Director - export of red sanders - prohibited goods - Held that - The fact that there was a mis-declared export consignment for which shipping bill was filed by M/s. Bhavya Exports at Air Cargo , Jaipur is not in dispute - The close examination of the facts analyzed by the impugned order makes it clear that the appellants cannot be de-linked from the responsibility of involvement in such improper attempt to export of the items. The present appellants were imposed with a penalty of ₹ 10 lakh and ₹ 5 lakh, perhaps, on the reason that they were master mind behind such action - interest of justice would be met if the quantum of penalty reduced to ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2.5 lakhs respectively - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for involvement in illegal export of Red Sanders.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appellants appealing against penalties imposed for their involvement in the illegal export of Red Sanders. The main appellant and the second appellant were held responsible for attempting to export prohibited goods in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. The penalties were imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellants argued that they legally procured Red Sanders from the Government of Tamil Nadu and were not fully aware of the export restrictions. They claimed to have accounted for all legal procurements and denied involvement in illegal export attempts. The appellants also questioned the valuation of goods seized in the export consignment and requested cross-examination of certain individuals whose statements led to adverse findings against them.

3. The respondent opposed the appeals, citing corroborative evidence implicating the appellants in the illicit export scheme. The role of a middleman and transporter was highlighted, along with statements from co-noticees supporting the allegations. The impugned order was deemed legally justified, and specific attention was drawn to the role of the second appellant in the case.

4. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants' involvement in the mis-declared export consignment was established by credible evidence. Despite the appellants' claims of legal procurement and disposal, their connection to the improper export attempts was clear. The Tribunal referenced findings from the Original Authority regarding the mastermind behind the illegal export activities.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' plea for reduced penalties, particularly questioning the valuation of the red sanders beads. While upholding the penalty imposition, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in penalties imposed on other parties involved in the export scheme. Ultimately, the penalties on the main appellant and the second appellant were reduced to &8377; 5 lakhs and &8377; 2.5 lakhs, respectively, in the interest of justice.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals while modifying the penalties imposed on the appellants. The detailed analysis of the evidence and findings presented in the impugned order supported the decision to uphold the penalties with the mentioned reductions for the main appellant and the second appellant.