9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellant. 2. The facts of the case is that one Shri Pradeep Dhond has procured and sent a huge quantity of Norphedrine, Ethyl Amphetamine, Phenyl Propanolamine and Amphetaminil to Mexico by mis-declaring the same as Lead Acetate. During investigation the DRI officers seized the goods - 116.400 Kgs of Amphetaminil and 324.600 Kgs of Norephedrine Hydrochloride valued at Rs. 1,10,25,000/- and 842.400 Kgs of Lead Acetate valued at Rs. 2,10,600/- at Air Cargo Complex on 12-6-2008. The officers also seized goods - 222.700 kgs of Norephedrine Hydrochloride and 94.700 kgs of Ethyl Amphetamine and Phenyl Propanolamine valued at Rs. 79,35,000/- from the transporter's godown at Jaywant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although he had arranged to get the material supplied by Shri S.P. Bahl collected he claimed ignorance of the place from where it was loaded on to the tempo which transported it to his (Dhond) office premises and the transporter's godown. Thus on the basis of statement of Shri Pradeep Dhond, the charge was lavelled on the Appellant and consequently penalties were imposed. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant made following submissions : 3.1 That the Appellant was implicated only on the statement of Shri Pradeep Dhond which was recorded at his back; The said statement was retracted by Shri Pradeep Dhond and the same cannot be used to penalise the appellant. The statement of Shri Dhond was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii. Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India in Appeal (crl.) 788 of 2005 in Supreme Court. 3.2 The ld. Counsel also submits that the goods seized in Customs area is only liable to confiscation, however the goods seized outside Customs area and found in domestic territory is not liable to confiscation. It is his submission that the appellant is not involved in the movement of goods in the Customs area attempted to be exported, accordingly no case of violation of any Customs provision is established against the appellant, hence he prayed to drop the penalties imposed. 4. The ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He also submits that in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater; SECTION 114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material. - If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was supplied by him to Shri Pradeep Dhond outside Customs area. 9. On careful reading of this Tribunal's order dated 8-2-2013 in case of Shri Pradeep Dhond, it is noticed that this Bench has taken view that the goods found outside Customs area, is not liable for confiscation and accordingly the confiscation was dropped. The relevant paras of the said order is reproduced below : 5.4 Regarding the goods seized at the transporter's premises and the office premises of the appellant confiscation has been proposed under Section 113(d). For confiscation under the said section, either there should be an attempt to export the goods or the goods should have been brought within the Customs area for the purposes of export. Both these condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
