9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y imposed by the Commissioner of Customs when admittedly the respondent has omitted to do an act or at least abetted in such omission under Section 114 of the Customs Act and as such liable to pay penalty under Section 114 of the Act?" 2. The brief facts are as follows: On 10.3.1998, the Officers of Customs Preventive Division, Tuticorin searched the godown at No.111, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin and found rows of cartons stacked in. Three persons were also seen there. On enquiry, one person identified himself as Nathan of Trichy and stated that he employed other two persons, namely, Selvaraj and Kalkan for packing the goods. The Officers found 476 cartons in the godown, out of which 419 of them containing sandalwood and 57 containing roof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lwood were sent to Alexander, which was kept in a godown. Since the said Alexander did not pursue the export in the manner stated, the said Rahuman Sait @ Nathan along with Dhanapal met one Maideen of Mannadi, who was an exporter in Chennai and discussed the matter and it appears that Maideen told that he would arrange illicit export through one Janarthanan @ Janar, who is the respondent herein. Accordingly, he met the said Janarthanan on 02.03.1998 and requested for arranging a godown. The said Janarthanan arranged a godown through his friend Hari. 3. In the course of investigation, it has come to the knowledge of the Department that the respondent Janarthanan was doing export business under the banner Janar Exports and his relative Shri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statement and the same was not voluntary one. Others, in whose statements he was implicated, had also retracted their statements. Janarthanan had no knowledge that consignment contained sanwood prior to filing of Shipping Bill. He was contacted by Shri A.T.Mohideen through Mohan for export of Onions, tiles etc. After filing of Shipping Bill by Ramesh, Shri Rahuman Sait informed about sandal wood being part of the consignment. He had immediately asked Ramesh to cancel the Shipping Bill. On intervention by Maideen that if he did so he would involve him. He did not take any further action. He informed the facts to Ramesh. As he had no knowledge, he could not be charged under Customs Act. The sandal wood was in the process of being packed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sivasubramanian 05 Lakhs " 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made on both sides, allowed the appeal holding as follows: "9. Against the appellant, ld. Commissioner found that, in spite of having knowledge of the sandalwood being part of the consignment of roofing tiles, he did not intimate the same to the Customs authorities. According to ld Commissioner, the omission of the appellant showed that he was involved in smuggling of sandalwood, attracting penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Now, one has got to examine the provisions of Section 114, which renders a person liable for penalty if any omissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the goods entered for exportation did not correspond in respect of value or in any material particulars with the entry made under the Act. On this admitted fact, the only question arises for consideration is whether the respondent is liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 13. The wording in Section 114 of the Customs Act is clear that any person who, in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or commission of such an act shall be liable for penalty. For better clarity, it is apposite to refer Section 114 of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: "SECTION 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods imprope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement of individuals, clearly established the act of the respondent, which render the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. The respondent is one among the culprits, who attempted to export sandalwood in the guise of roofing tiles. Since the respondent had knowledge about the sandalwood being part of the consignment of roofing tiles, but did not intimate the same to the customs Authorities, he is liable for penalty. 16. On a reading of the evidence and the findings of the Commissioner, we find that the Tribunal has come to the erroneous conclusion that the act of the respondent in not disclosing the information is not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the Department and against the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
