9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. On perusal of the Commissioner's order, it is found that he has given proper findings after proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, both the lower authorities correctly and legally imposed penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. As regard the quantum of penalty, it is observed that value of the goods i.e. wood logs attempted to be smuggled is ₹ 1.40 Lacs. Considering the value, I am of the view that penalty imposed by the lower authorities is on higher side, therefore in my view penalty of ₹ 50,000/- appears to be proper and reasonable and therefore reduced the penalty from ₹ 1 lacs to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/86840/13 - A/86110/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not of red sanders, goods were wood logs as against declared goods i.e. Plastic pipe in the export documents. It was alleged that all the factory stuffing permission and export documents were forged and fabricated with duplicate seal and signature. The export of wood logs was prohibited as per the export import policy. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the seized wood logs and consequent penalty on the various persons including the appellant. In the Adjudication, appellant was imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lac under Section 114(i) as well as 114AA of Customs Act, 1962, wood logs valued ₹ 1,40,100/- was confiscated absolutely. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 24/1/2012 appellant filed appeal before the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for confiscation. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that on the basis of statements of various persons involved in attempt of fraudulent export of wood logs as well as confessionary statement of the appellant, it is very clear that role of the appellant in illegal activity is clearly established therefore since prohibited goods liable for confiscation, appellant is also liable for penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. On perusal of the Commissioners order, I find that he has after proper appreciation of facts, given proper findings which is reproduced below: 13. The appellant has requested for grant of waiver pre-deposit of penalty as it will cause financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wood loogs by mis-declaring the same as Plastic Pipes (Expandable) Polystyrene Resin) in the Shipping Bill. Shri Brijesh Mahipatlal Nirmal and Shri Rajendra Gajanan Jadhav fild Shipping Bill No. 7329931 dated 12.05.2009 in the name of exporter M/s. Disha International along with forged/fabricated documents viz.(i) Invoice No. EXP-20069 dated 30.4.2009 issued by M/s. Disha International, for export of 195 Nos. of Plastic Pipes amunting to FOB 19500 USD, (ii) Letter dated 10.05.2009 issued by M/s. Disha International and addressed to the India Mercantile Agency, Mumbai and (iii) Original, Duplicate and Triplicate copies of A.R.E.1 No.031/09-01 dated 30.04.2009 prepared in the name of M/s. Disha International for export of 195 Nos. of Expanda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the forged/fabricated export documents. To the point raised by the appellant that the adjudicating authority had dis-allowed the cross-examination of the witnesses on whose statement the department relied upon, I find that it is discussed in detail in the impugned order by citing suitable case law. In view of the foregoing, I find that the goods are rightly liable to confiscation under Section 113(d), 113(f), 113(g) and 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, I find the adjudicating authority had passed a well reasoned order. From the above findings, I find that offence of the appellant is not under dispute. Both the lower authorities correctly and legally imposed penalty under Section 114(i) and 114AA. As regard the quantum of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
