9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso conducted. Pieces of red sander woods, other materials and tools were found. It appeared that the tools were used to manipulate the doors of the container without breaking the seal put by the Customs and thus smuggling the red sanders out of India. Investigation revealed that a similar container loaded with red sanders had left for Jebel Ali Port, UAE. The same was recalled and examined. The customs seal affixed was found in tact. On opening the container it was found that the same was stuffed with red sander logs valued at Rs. 1.81 Crores. The shipping bill dated 21.02.2015 was filed by M/s. Sam Impex, Coimbatore, through their customs broker M/s. Pierce Leslie Agencies Ltd., Tuticorin, for export of cotton tufted floor mats, UAE. Statements were obtained by SIIB and as a result of investigation SCN was issued to the appellants herein. After adjudication, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh on M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd., under Section 114 and also confiscated the container under Section 113 and 119 of the Customs Act. A redemption fine of Rs. Two lakhs was imposed in lieu of confiscation. Separate penalties of Rs. One lakh and Rs. Two lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EC services Ltd., the Ld. Counsel, Shri Derrick Sam appeared and argued the matter. In respect of M/s. SEC Services Ltd., the Ld. Counsel fairly concedes that in the appeal filed by them against the proceedings initiated for violation of Regulations 6 (1) (k) of HCCAR Rules 2009, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal upholding the penalty imposed. The present appeal relates to the penalty imposed for violations of the provisions under the Customs Act. He pleaded that the penalty cannot be imposed under the Customs Act for any violation alleged under the provisions of Regulations 6 (1) k of HCCAR Rules 2009. Further, penalty that has been imposed under the said Act and further penalty would not lie under the Customs Act. 3.3 In respect of M/s. Seaport Lines (I) Pvt. Ltd., he submitted that there is no allegation or finding that the appellants have played any positive role in the smuggling of red sanders. The only allegation is that they failed to obtain KYC details from the client. The appellant had booked the container on commission basis and therefore it was not possible to get the KYC details of the exporter directly. However, the appellants had verified the KYC details of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng this aspect into consideration and also taking note of the fact that there is no allegation of direct involvement of the appellants in the offence, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs. Two lakhs imposed is on the higher side and requires to be reduced. I therefore reduce the penalty imposed on M/s. SEC Services Ltd., to Rs. 50,000/- 6.2. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh on M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Seaport Lines. The allegation is that they did not obtain KYC details of the client. The Regulations require to obtain KYC of the client. M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd. is a shipping liner and they did not have any direct transaction with the exporter. Their immediate client was Ms/. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and they have produced the KYC details of M/s. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Similar is the case with regard to M/s. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. who have submitted the KYC details through their cargo transport service. Department does not have a case that these appellants have any direct transaction with the exporter. The Tribunal in similar set of facts have discussed in detail the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ld. Counsel, I find that both the said judgments have not dealt with the Public Notice No. 17/2012, therefore, the ratio of the same are not applicable, hence distinguished." 6.3 In the case of Freight Connection India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has observed as follows:- "5. Having heard the rival contentions and considering the facts on record, I find that the present appellant have issued the container in question for past export through another freight forwarder. I further find that the whole case of the Revenue is based on assumption and presumption as neither the main accused nor the exporter/owners of the goods have been found and brought to adjudication and in the absence of examination of the main exporter, and further in absence of the purported prohibited goods not found and or confiscated, I hold that no case is made out for imposition of penalty against the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order to extent imposition of penalty on the present appellant is set aside. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law." 6.4. In the case of Maheshwari Rocks (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
