9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Nilotpal Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Sri S.K. Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The issue is common in both the appeals, hence the same are taken up for disposal. This is a case of export of onion to Bangladesh under valid Bill of Export. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that at the relevant point of time i.e. 15.06.2014 the Export Policy for Onion under Chapter sub-heading 0712 2000 was Free under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014. Ld. Advocate further submits that vide Notification No.82(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 17.06.2014, the Foreign Trade Policy of onion has been made conditional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. Union of India 1978 (2) ELT 0355(S.C) has held as under:- 45. I shall now take up the question of limitation. The written demand made on March 21, 1963 purports to have been made under Rule 9(2) of the rules. Therein the assessing authority demanded steel ingot duty which according to it the assessee had failed to pay. Quite clearly Rule 9(2) is inapplicable to the facts of the case, Admittedly the assessee had cleared the goods from the warehouse after paying the duty demanded and after obtaining the permission of the concerned authority. Hence there is no question of any evasion. Despite the fact that the assessee challenged the validity of the demand made on him, both the Assistant Collector as we// as the Collector i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that he knew as to the nature of the demand. Therefore, I find no substance in the plea of limitation advanced on behalf of the assessee. 8. Therefore, the citing of wrong provision of the Act by the lower authority will not make the impugned order invalid. Therefore, I find that the contention of the appellant is not valid and thus it is not tenable. 11. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that for violation of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 penalty is not imposable under Customs Act, 1962, is not tenable. Therefore, the lower authority has correctly imposed penalty on the appellant under the Act. 12 Therefore, I find that the respondent has rightly imposed penalty on the appellant and I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification i.e. 17.06.2014 when export of onion was free under the Foreign Trade Policy. In both the cases, the packing list was issued on 17.06.2014, when the notification dated 17.06.2014 imposed the conditions on export of onion. Thus, there is a violation of the conditions of the policy. But it can be construed that the appellants have not violated the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy deliberately. However, as there is violation of the policy, penalty is imposable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. On going through the provisions of Section 114, I find that the penalty is imposable for attempt to export improperly. Since the amended notification had come only on 17.6.2014 there has been a violation of the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
