9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants when failed to detach themselves from the offence and endangered the interest of Custom, they were required to be dealt under the Act. Their role was also contributory to the confiscation of smuggled goods. Therefore imposition of penalties of ₹ 5,00,00/- on each of them does not appear to be unreasonable when their role in abetting and aiding smuggling was proved by investigation successfully. The law of Customs has object to curb mischief against Customs and deter smuggling. Preponderance of probability is always in favour of Revenue. The appellants in this case were intimately connected with the smuggling racket without ascertaining the identity of exporter and owner of IEC. No authorization was obtained by them to file sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he logs were red sanders . Those were sized being prohibited for export under SI.No.154 of Schedule 2 (Export Policy) of TTC (HS) Classification of Import and Export Items (Vol.3-A, 2009-14) and confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 1.3 In addition to the seizure of the above said red sander logs, 1272 bags of 'Potash Feldspar 200 Mesh' which were used to conceal the same were seized and confiscated under Section 119 of the Act. The container No. BMOU2319149 carrying the offending goods found to having been tampered as reported by Shri. M. Vadamalai, Container Surveyor was also seized and confiscated under law. The surveyor reported exhibited that the bolts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng list of the consignment (consisting offending goods) from him and using the CHA license of M/s. Sowparnika Shipping Services, owned by Shri. K. V. Prabhakaran , he filed the Shipping Bill. He further stated that stuffing and sealing of the three containers was done in Vishrutha CFS in his presence and also in the presence of Shri. Krishna Prasad. All the three containers left the CFS to Port in the trailers were arranged by Shri. Krishna Prasad. 3.2 Investigation found that Sri Litheesh was not the authorised person to handle customs clearance but filed the Shipping Bill using the licence of M/s. Sowparnika Shipping Services owned by Shri K.V. Prabhakaran and abated smuggling of the offending goods. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments like invoice and packing list to Customs to discharge his duty under the Customs law. But the adjudicating authority found fault with him without any reason holding that he was negligent and was violator of CHALR 2004 Regulation. He did not find existence of any of the ingredients of Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 to penalise him. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 7. Shri Satish Sundar, learned Advocate arguing on behalf of Shri K.V. Prabhakaran submitted that he was Prop. of M/s. Sowparnika Shipping Services and was not at all involved in attempted export of red sanders. Shri Litheesh , who was known to him had used his CHA licence for Customs clearance in good faith. This appellant had no mens rea nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalised. They act malafide proving their intent for undue enrichment at the cost of Customs. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10.1 Evidence came to record showing that the smuggled goods were concealed under HDPE Bags containing Potash Feldspar 200 Mesh and covered by a grey coloured plastic sheet inside the container. Shri Litheesh who had no CHA licence by his firm M/s Flamingo Shipping Services, revealed story of his assistance to Shri Krishna Prasad and aided him beginning from the stage of booking the container to clear the alleged export of red sanders. Such act of abetment of Shri Litheesh was corroborated from the statement of Shri Krishna Prasad , who on examination revealed entire story of the atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and abet smuggling of red sanders. Both the appellants could not detach themselves from the smuggling racket. Plea of both the appellants that they were innocent could have received consideration had they brought out the illegal act to the knowledge of Customs. But they did not. They acted in connivance with the racket till the offending container was seized by the investigation resulting in discovery of smuggled goods. 11. The proceeding under the Customs Act, 1962 is quite different and independent of any proceeding under CHALR 2004. Appellants when failed to detach themselves from the offence and endangered the interest of Custom, they were required to be dealt under the Act. Their role was also contributory to the confiscation of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
