2010 (2) TMI 1137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JDR Order Per Shri S. S. Kang : The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) was imposed on the appellant under the Customs Act. The appellant is a CHA. 2. Brief facts of the case are that two consignments of handloom woven silk made-up articles were intercepted by the Revenue Officers. The consignments .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ght. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Customs Officials and hence liable for penalty 4. The contention of the appellant is that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was aware of the mis-declaration. The shipping bills were filed as per the documents supplied by the exporter hence, the appellants are not liable for penalty. 5. The case of the Revenue is that Shr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 09 (239) ELT 407 (Del.). 6. We find that Shri Sanjeev Tewary in his statement dated 9.6.2003 explained the procedure regarding clearance of the goods from Falta Special Economic Zone which was going out of Falta Special Economic Zone. It is also admitted by Shri Sanjeev Tewary that he was present at the time of loading of the goods in the trucks. In the circumstances, we find merit in the conte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X