2007 (2) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alty under section 114 – After considering the fact allegation find right and the demand of penalty sustained
[Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal is by a Customs House Agent challenging the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on them by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 2. It appears from the records that the appellants had filed Shipping Bill No. 4653 dated 24- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submitted that, due to some oversight, the Customs officer had entered the date as 30-12-1998 instead of 31-12-1998 on the shipping bill. Thus, according to the appellants, the goods were examined and stuffed on 31-12-1998. After a scrutiny of the records, the Commissioner found that the goods entered the port on 31-12-1998 and were stuffed on that date but subsequently destuffed on 13-1-1999. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... art from rejecting the drawback claim of the exporter. 3. In the present appeal, the main argument of the CHA is that the goods had already been exported and therefore the same were not liable for confiscation and none was liable for penalty. Learned Counsel reiterates this ground today. We have heard learned SDR also. 4. It is settled law that, in respect of goods already exported out of the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X