9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – Appellant accepted export invoice and did not verify factory stuffing permission or even care to see whether factory stuffing documents and seal on container are genuine – Mere contravention of provisions of Act and Regulations justifies imposition of penalty – Apex Court as observed that "mens rea is not a necessary ingredient and there is no scope for any discretion in imposition of any penalty" –Therefore penalty is imposable – Decided against Appellant. - Appeal No. C/87636-87637/2013-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/1471-1472/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 21-11-2014 - P S Pruthi, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Shri Jhammansingh, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri D D Joshi, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per: P S Pruthi: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment of ₹ 8,900/- from Shri Raju Koyande. This appellant although having his own firm M/s. Staad Akshay Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., also undertook Customs clearance work for the other appellant Shri Ashok Jaiswal partner of CHA M/s. Jai International. In the attempt to export the present consignment he did not obtain a proper authorization from the IEC holder. After procedural and legal formalities undertaken by DRI, the consignment was seized. In adjudication, the same was duly confiscated being a banned item for export. In the present appeals we are dealing only with the appellants on whom a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh each has been imposed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. Advocate contended that Shri Shinde is innocent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of ₹ 6,000/- per month from Shri Ashok Jaiswal partner of M/s. Jai International which itself is illegal and amounts to subletting of a CHA license. Even, ignoring this wrong practice, I find that the appellant had at no stage taken the most elementary of all precautions i.e. to know his supplier and his Customer. He agreed to receive a consignment said to be of M/s. Ratan International from Shri Suresh Kumar Jain without checking or even trying to know as to who, M/s. Ratan international is. He accepted the export invoice and did not verify the factory stuffing permission or even care to see whether the factory stuffing documents and seal on container are genuine. In his statement he admitted to his mistake. Another grave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A M/s. Jain International and at the same time being paid for using the pass issued by the CHA, itself raises reasonable doubt that he was carrying on business in contravention of Section 146 of the Customs Act. The judgments referred to by the appellant do not come to his aid. The question here is not merely of knowledge on his part regarding the attempted smuggling. The question is whether he has omitted to do any act which have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113. I have discussed above, the various acts of omission which may appear to be trivial but which are actually of a very serious nature in the case of smuggling of prohibited goods. Nothing can be more serious that not even finding out as to who the exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his duties as a CHA agent and the omission resulted in the grave consequence of smuggling of prohibited goods by allowing Shri Nandu Shinde to use his licence. He contravened the provisions of Section 146 of the Customs Act, under which only the CHA holder is authorized to carry on the business as a Custom House Agent relating to import of export of the goods. 8. The appellants have relied on the case of P.D. Manjekar (supra) as well as other cases to justify their contention that for imposition of penalty under Section 114, Revenue has to prove knowledge on the part of the assessee regarding the incident of export of banned goods. Section 114 is reproduced below for ready reference. 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods impro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
