9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appellant for alleged attempt to export in eligible materials viz. cotton mats instead of silk and claimed DEEC benefits thereon. The notice issued to the present appellant as it appears from the impugned order proposed as follows :- (c) Shri S.P. Aradhya, Proprietor of M/s. Nandi Silks was issued a show cause notice dated 19-12-97 asking him as to why penalty should not be imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rential duty since imports had taken place through Chennai the same may have to be initiated by the Madras (Chennai) Customs House against M/s. Sree Vee Silks for goods imported under the QBAL No. 3290277, dated 23-8-94 based on facts available on record. 3. Based on these findings, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the present appellant, Proprietor of M/s. Nandi Silks under Section 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DEEC scheme. 5. As regards penalty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, such penalty, under this provision, is called for only in case of dutiable goods other than prohibited goods. In the present case, the goods under export i.e. Mulberry Silk products or and cotton mats both are not dutiable while they are to be exported out of India. Therefore, penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to export, as provided under Section 113 and sub-clauses thereof. Since preparation for export is not an offence which would render the goods liable for confiscation, no penalty could be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for abetting such preparation, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the appellant has abetted in this case of export. 7. In view of my findings, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
