9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Parasivamurthy N.K., Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant ORDER Per: S. S. Garg Appellants have filed these two appeals against the two impugned orders dated 04.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The issue involved in both the appeals is common and therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that on the basis of intelligence received by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the effect that M/s. Nikasu Packs Pvt. Ltd. was effecting exports of non basmati rice and wheat atta which were items covered in the prohibited list for exports under ITC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. with respect to exports made to their Australian Buyers. He then submitted the following files: a) Export file of M/s. Nikasu Packs Pvt. Ltd. for the period January 2008 to March 2009 b) Procurement file of M/s. Nikasu Packs Pvt. Ltd. c) Correspondence files of their three Australian buyers viz., M/s. Agro Trade International Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Caprihans Australia Pty. Ltd., and M/s. FBC International Pty. Ltd. 2.2. Further on the basis of the documents seized during the search conducted at the office of the appellant and on the basis of the statement of the CEO as well as employees of the appellant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, a show-cause notice dated 10.03.2010 was issued to the appellant as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins to 2012 I am proceeding to decide the appeal on the basis of the material on record. 4. Heard the learned AR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order imposing penalty being not sustainable in law. The appellant has also averred in the grounds of appeal that the appellant as well as its officers are not denied the allegation leveled against them in the show-cause notice but only to emphatically submit the reasons that compelled to undertake the export of prohibited items that the buyer had arm twisted the appellant by threatening to cancel the orders of frozen foods if non-basmati rice and wheat flour that are prohibited and had confessed before the authorities that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions of the learned AR and perusal of the grounds of appeal and other material on record, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order imposing the penalty on the appellants in view of the fact that they have exported non-basmati rice and wheat atta in violation of the notification banning the export of the same. Further the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kunal Travel (Cargo) has also justified the imposition of penalty in the similar fact situation and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court cited supra. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing both the appeals. (Operative port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
