9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 9-10-2009 - D.V. Shylendra Kumar and L. Narayana Swamy, JJ. Shri V.R. Balasubramani, Advocate, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.]. An appeal by a Custom House clearing agent, who is aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Original Authority, First. Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, who had occasion to find that the appellant was liable to be mulcted with a penalty under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ) for being in the position of an abettor with an exporter, who had not only misdeclared the goods meant for export but had also over-valued the goods with an intention to claim additional or extra duty draw-back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant for the reason that the findings of the two authorities below due to its involvement as an abettor was correct and had to be sustained, nevertheless, took into consideration the earlier clean record of the appellant find thought it proper to exercise its discretion and reduced the penalty from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- in terms of the order dated 2-4-2009 (copy at Annexure-A). It is to get over even this penalty, the present appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. 7. Sri. V.R. Balasubramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was absolutely no justification for levying such a penalty on the appellant; that the appellant had not suppressed or misdeclared the value or the quantity of the goods sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether Hon ble Tribunal was correct in restricting the penalty to Rs, 50,000/- on the appellants for the sins of the exporter in the absence of any material to show any interest or gain other than normal agency remuneration? 6. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in penalizing that the appellant in of Rs. 50,000/- in the absence of any allegation of the appellants influencing the Customs Authorities to examine only particular packages? 7. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- when there was no evidence of dubious conduct or questionable behavior emanating from the records? 9. We have perused the impugned orders and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We find none of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
