9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Majhi, A.R. ORDER Per : S. K. Mohanty All these appeals are arising out of the common impugned order, involving the issue of imposition of penalties for illegal export of Red Sanders, instead of the declared goods as Polished Marble Slabs. Therefore, we are taking up these appeals together for hearing and a common order is being passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the DRI officers gathered intelligence that the exporter M/s. Ritu Corporation, Proprietor Shri Ashish Kumar Singh exported two containers from ICD, Thar Dry Port, Jodhpur under two shipping bills, both dated 03.09.2012, by declaring the goods as Polished Marble Slabs and the said consignments had sailed to the destined Port from Mundra Port. On identification of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Paikh, Managing Director of M/s. The Thar Dry Port and Shri Amit Jain, Marketing Manager of M/s. The Thar Dry Port:- The custodian is required to provide facilities of infrastructure, equipment and adequate manpower for loading, unloading, stacking, handling, stuffing and de-stuffing of containers, storage, dispatch and delivery of containers and cargo etc. The containers for the export consignments of M/s. Ritu Corporation, Jodhpur were allowed to be transported by the custodian, M/s.The Thar Dry Port on private trailers arranged by such exporter. Thus, the said noticees have grossly neglected the laid down procedures and deliberately facilitated the smugglers to take the containers in their transport vehicles and handed over the custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forwarder, after addressing the KYC norms of the exporter. It was not the job of shipping line to issue a No Objection Certificate to the custodian for movement of the containers on private trailers. Since the noticee had given NOC, without verifying the approval of customs and facilitated the transportation of cargo by road for substitution with contraband red-sanders, the conduct of noticee is not bonafide. 6. Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates imposition of penalty, in cases, when any person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which renders the goods liable for confiscation. From the above observations of the adjudicating authority, we find that the charges leveled against the appellants are basically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandated under various Regulations for dealing with goods in legalized manner. Apparently, there is no material evidence available in records to prove that the appellants were either involved in smuggling of the goods, or encouraged and supported the wrong doer in doing the wrongful act in attempting to export the goods. These penal provisions call for prior knowledge of wrong doing or existence of deliberate intend (malafide). Section 114 A of the Act also provides for imposition of penalty for furnishing incorrect or false declarations. Here also such declaration should be intentional with prior knowledge. Thus, as per the settled principles, penal provisions cannot be invoked for imposition of penalties under Section 114 and 114AA of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
