9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trol over the goods as held by the Tribunal in the case of N. Karim & Sons. Therefore, the appellant namely M/s. Falcon International and M/s Venkatesh Agencies being exporter and CHA respectively are not liable to be penalized under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly penalty on both the appellants have been dropped. As the appellant M/s. Falcon International has not violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shir V R Kulkarni, DC(AR) Per: Ashok Jindal: Appellants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act has been imposed on the appellants namely M/s Venkatesh Agencies (CHA) Rs.1 lakh, M/s. Falcon International (exporter) Rs.4 lakhs, M/s. Albatross Shipping Ltd. (Shipping line ) Rs.7 lakhs. 2. The facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and therefore, penalties on all the three appellant were imposed as per impugned order. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are before me. 3. Shri Anil Balani, ld. advocate for the appellant appeared for M/s Falcon Internation and M/s Venkatesh Agencies. None appeared for M/s. Albatross Shipping Ltd. As matter was called several times earlier also, none appeared on behalf of M/s. Albatro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (iii) of the Act. To support this contention, he placed reliance on CCE vs. N. Karim Sons 2010 (251) ELT 444 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Custom Appeal no. 47 of 2010 on 06.07.2010. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the impugned order. 6. Considering the submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I find that after going to the port are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 40 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, they are liable to be penalized. But in the case of CSAV Group Agencies (India) P. Ltd. 2009 (248) ELT 165 the Hon'ble High Court has reduced the penalty to 40% of the penalty imposed by the adjudication authority. Therefore, I reduce the penalty to 40% of the penalty imposed by the adjudication authority. 8. All the appeals are di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
