9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge that the rice brought for export was a category of non basmati rice. However, when the DNA testing was brought to appellant’s knowledge he also requested for taking the goods back to the town as the export orders have also been cancelled, which should have been considered by the adjudicating authority. The ratio laid down by the CESTAT in the case of Sachdeva & Sons [1986 (12) TMI 215] is squarely applicable in this case and no confiscation/ penalty is imposable upon the appellant No.1. So far as the penalties imposed upon appellant No.2 are concerned, he also had no knowledge, so no penalties can be imposed upon him. Imposition of penalty upon appellant No.3 is concerned, the ratio of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Anchor Logistics vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 dated 24.12.2010 and 2177721 dated 06.1.2011 the rice was opined to be non-basmati rice after DNA mapping. The case was adjudicated against the appellants and the goods meant for export were confiscated and redemption fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs was imposed. Penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, were also imposed upon appellant No.1. Penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were also imposed upon Appellant No. 2 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114(i) was also imposed on M/s. C. Jivram Joshi Sons, Custom House Agents. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It was argued by Shri P.P. Jadeja, learned consultant on behalf of the appellants that the ric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs vs. Commissioner of Customs Kandla of Ahmedabad Bench decided in order No. A/1739-1740/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 12.08/ 11.10.2010, in which it has been held that penalty on the CHA cannot be imposed as he was having no knowledge of prohibited nature of the rice. 5. On the other hand, learned A.R. submits that the goods attempted to be exported were of the prohibited nature and therefore, fine and penalties have been correctly imposed upon all the three appellants. 6. I have considered the rival arguments. As per Central Government (DGFT) Notification No. 55/RE-2008-2011 dated 05.11.2008, only Basmati Rice of certain specifications are permitted to be exported as per Serial No.55A of the above notification. Non-basmati Rice is specified u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill was filed only after the DO letter dated 14.12.2010, written by DGFT to ADG DRI, Delhi that DNA testing was not required. From the above documentary evidences it is clear that the appellants had no knowledge regarding the prohibited nature of the rice. It was only after the DNA testing done at BEDF, the appellants acquired the knowledge of non-basmati rice category of the cargo. There is no contrary finding that at the time of filing of shipping bills appellants has knowledge of the prohibited nature of export consignments. As per Para 19 of the order in original dated 25.5.2012, the appellants requested for taking the goods back to town as there export order stand cancelled. 7. Appellants relied upon the judgment of Sachdeva Sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Agmark certificate versus the other, the authorities ought to have investigated further, preferably through the Chief Agmark Adviser at Nagpur as to which of the two certificates was correct and what really had gone wrong in that the rice certified as Basmati at source became non-Basmati rice at Bombay. Was it a case of negligence or collusion at the source? Or, was it a case of forgery or substitution en-route? Or, did either of the Agmark authorities follow incorrect sampling or" testing procedure/ The record is totally silent on what went wrong and where and whether the exporters had a hand in it and, if so, to what extent? The circumstances were such that investigations ought to have been conducted by the Department on its own to fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio laid down by the CESTAT in the case of Sachdeva Sons (supra) is squarely applicable in this case and no confiscation/ penalty is imposable upon the appellant No.1. So far as the penalties imposed upon appellant No.2 are concerned, he also had no knowledge that the goods brought for export is of prohibited nature and therefore, no penalties can be imposed upon the appellant No.2 under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. So far as imposition of penalty upon appellant No.3 is concerned, the ratio of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Anchor Logistics vs. Commissioner of Customs Kandla (supra) is squarely applicable as till the DNA testing was done, CHA was having no knowledge of prohibited nature of the export cargo. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
