9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against confiscation of Teak Wood Planks under Customs Act, 1962 without special license and legal documents, penalty levied on individuals involved, ownership of goods, validity of shipping documents, attempt to export goods without proper authorization.
Analysis: 1. The appeals arose from the confiscation of Teak Wood Planks valued at Rs. 6.00 lakhs under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for attempting to export them without the required special license and legal documents. The goods were allowed redemption on payment of a redemption fine and penalties were imposed on three individuals under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act. 2. The redemption was allowed to the owner of the vessel, M/s. Hajee P.V. Mohammad Baramy & Sons, as no appeal was filed by the firm. The appeals focused on the penalties imposed on the three individuals mentioned in the order. 3. The appellants contended that the vessel belonged to M/s. Hajee P.V. Mohammad Baramy & Sons, and they loaded the goods based on the belief that a special export permit existed with another individual, Shri P.N. Hamja Koya. They argued that the valid shipping documents covered the goods and that Shri Koya disowned the goods after initially arranging for the shipping bill amendment, putting them in a difficult position. However, the Tribunal found the appellants' plea unconvincing as Shri Koya had valid documents for export and would not disown goods worth over Rs. 6 lakhs without reason. The appellants' inculpatory statements further confirmed their attempt to use the shipping bill as a cover. 4. The Judicial Member for the Respondent argued that the appellants made an attempt to export the goods without proper legal documents and against a shipping bill belonging to someone else, suggesting a deliberate scheme. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to uphold the lower authority's decision. 5. After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants indeed attempted to export the Teak Wood Planks without proper authorization, leading to the confiscation and penalties imposed. It was noted that the appellants' actions were deliberate, as evidenced by their statements and failure to cross-examine Shri Koya. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalties, finding the appellants liable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty on one individual was reduced to align with the others, and the penalty on the vessel's employee was significantly reduced due to his subordinate role in the operation. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals with minor modifications to the penalties imposed, emphasizing the appellants' deliberate attempt to export goods without proper authorization and the liability of the individuals involved under the Customs Act.
|
