9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Shri S.K.Naskar AC(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H.K.Thakur 1. These Appeals have been filed by the appellants Shri Subhas Bose and Shri S.Santra against Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/PORT/7/07 dt.13.06.2007 under which a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs each has been imposed upon the appellants under Sec. 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri Sukhendu Bhattacharya (Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not establish that the appellant has knowledge of the fraudulent intentions of the exporter and that there is no extra consideration received for doing the work. That acting without authorization may invite taking of action upon the CHA licence under CHA Regulations. Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws:- (i) K.Ramana v. CC, Chennai [2009(238)ELT 620(Tri-Chennai)] (ii) Parvez J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Red Sanders against a declaration of Cast Articles of Iron-Manhole Cover in the shipping bills. It is observed from the case records that no where during the investigation it has come out that both the appellants had knowledge that the goods contained in the containers were Red Sanders wood and not the goods actually declared in the Shipping bills. Inability to take precautions by the CHA or its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions made, it is apparent that the question, as proposed originally, does not arise out of impugned order of Tribunal as the order in original also reveals that penalty was never levied under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, even if one considers the amended question, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Act permit levy of penalty on a person w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
