9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding agents M/s. Fracht Forwarders for export of costos roots. They were asked to file a no objection certificate from the Drug Controller as well as the Wildlife department for export of roots, as only the plants cultivated in private lands could be exported as per Import and Export Policy 1988-91. 3. The exporters produced no objection certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller. They have also produced subsequently the Legal Procurement Certificate (LPC) and the convention on the International Trade in endangered species of flora and fauna issued in the name of Himalayan Traders. 4. It was their submission that the appellants are the merchant exporters and had procured these from their suppliers M/s. Himalayan Traders who in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of Himalayan Traders and the aforesaid certificate No. 4/CC had been produced before the authorities. However the department s contention was that the certificate was in the name of Himalayan Traders and not in the name of the appellants and was therefore not acceptable. In the circumstances, the Addl. Collector has held the exporters guilty of an attempt to export illegally thereby attracting Section 113(d) and imposed the redemption fine and he had also imposed a personal penalty on the .......... 7. We find that the contentions of the learned counsel have a strong force. 8. Admittedly a legal procurement certificate No. 4 under the Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Wildlife Species of flora and fauna issued in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported (subject to compliance with other formalities and requirements). 10. In the instant case the appellants have produced the letter from the supplier and the certificate issued by the authorities and the learned departmental representative has also accepted that they apparently cover the consignment and their only objection was that the certificate did not indicate the name of the exporter. This was not a valid objection. Once the goods were covered by the certificate, it could not be stated that an attempt to export the goods illegally was involved. Therefore neither Section 113 was attracted nor Section 114 particularly so when the department is unable to show that a certificate in the name of the exporter was required to be issued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
