9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai Port by sea. But on physical examination of the consignment, packed in 410 gunny bags, the goods were found to be prohibited goods viz., wooden powder/dust, wooden flakes. Those were attempted to be exported in violation of the EXIM Policy 2009-2014. Value thereof was declared to be Rs. 4,87,200/-. Customs absolutely confiscated the same and imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh on the appellant in adjudication holding that there was smuggling of prohibited goods from India. 2. The consignment came to the Customs shed on 24.11.2009 for export and on physical examination thereof, the officers of the ICD, Irugur, Tamilnadu, found aforesaid offending goods in the container. Accordingly that was seized. Customs noticed that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnature appearing in different export documents i.e., Shipping Bill etc. were not his signature for which that can be verified form Shri Madan Kumar. 4. The export documents were prepared by CHA M/s. Anchorage Shipping which was arranged by Madan Kumar. M. Rajkumar of Anchorage Shipping stated that Shri Madan Kumar informed that the goods were to be exported to Singapore. 5. When name of Shri Madan Kumar was uttered by the appellant, Madan Kumar was examined on 27.8.2010 by Customs. He revealed his past experience of engagement in the export and import, having worked with Elite Logistics (I) (P) Ltd. He stated that during October, 2009, one Shri Mohammed and his brother Sabu of M/s Surya International of Mumbai visited the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the staff of the S.J. International Since he was friend of Shri Shivaraj, (appellant) and proprietor of S.J. International. When the signature over the export documents were exposed to him by investigation, he explained that those were received from Sabu and were used in the export. In those documents, rubber stamp of S.J. International were affixed. 8. The H Card holder Shri M. Rajkumar, of Anchorage Shipping when was examined on 20.8.2015 against the shipping bill aforesaid, he disclosed name of Madan Kumar who stated him that the container contained goods for agarbhathi manufacturer and the shipping documents were prepared accordingly. He had no knowledge of the contents in the containers. The authorized signatory of Anchorage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the appellant before Tribunal submitted that except the monetary consideration for lending the IEC, appellant did not make any gain out of the impugned transaction nor he was actively involved in the attempted export of offending goods for which he may not be penalized. He not being owner of the goods nor made any investment therein and Mohammed and Sabu were the owner of the goods appellant, deserves leniency. 13. Revenue on the other hand supports the adjudication and reiterated the appellate finding. 14. Heard both sides and perused the records. 15.1 Seizure of the goods and attempt to export the prohibited goods of the description aforesaid remained unrebutted. Appellant was the registered holder of the IEC and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
