9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Rare Craft Overseas, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as "RCO"] for export of certain "Indian Artistic Handicrafts" totaling to 114 cartons. S/Shri D. Srinivasa Rao and A.M. Jamaludheen were partners of RCO. The Shipping Bill was filed by the exporter through CHA, M/s. Glow Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Shri R. Ramesh, Manager and Shri K. Shanmugam, Executive (Operations) of the above CHA firm. The goods proposed to be exported by RCO was got certified by the Senior Assistant Director, Regional Design and Technical Development Centre, Delhi. The above authority vide their certificated dated 23.10.2006 certified the items covered under the export invoices to be in the nature of "Indian Handicrafts". The goods were stuffed in the container, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- (i) The export goods were ordered for confiscation under section 113(d)(h)(i) as prohibited goods as well as other goods used to conceal the prohibited goods under section 118(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Penalties were levied as follows:- S.No. Name S/Shri Designation Amt. of Penalty (in Rs.) 01 D.M. Srinivasa Rao Partner of RCO 7,50,000 02 A.M. Jamaludheen Partner of RCO 7,50,000 03 R. Ramesh Manager of GFLPL 3,75,000 04 K. Shanmugam Executive (Operations) of GFLPL 5,00,000 05 C. Srijith Branch Manager of ILFF 5,00,000 The above findings have been challenged in the present appeals. 3. In this connection, we have heard the arguments of S/Shri S. Murugappan and B. Satish Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the persons of contraband in the export consignments; and (iii) He also relied on various case laws as detailed below:- (a) M/s. H.S. Cox & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T.621 (Tri. -Mumbai); and (b) M/s. H.S. Cox & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T.621 (Tri. -Mumbai). 5. Opposing the above contentions, the learned Departmental Representative justified the penalties imposed on the above three persons. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of S/Shri R. Ramesh and K. Shanmugam by holding them as representative of the CHA, it was their duty to be present at the time of the stuffing since they were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority has confiscated the export consignment without extending an opportunity for redemption. 7. The learned Departmental Representative argued that the request for cross-examination has indeed been considered by the adjudicating authority and the same was rejected through the Order dated 09.07.2007. Since the above order has not been challenged by the appellant, they cannot take the plea that the request for examination has not been contested. He also argued that no such request is available on record for redemption of goods other than the prohibited goods. Finally, she prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. At the outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside. 10. We now consider the penalties imposed on Shri C. Srijith, Branch Manager of ILFF. In the impugned order, the rule attributed to him is that of a middle-man, who has liaised with the partners of the exporting firm, and also approached the CHA firm with the export documents for filing the shipping bill. The reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for imposing penalty on him is that he was actively engaged in handling of export cargo despite not being a licence holder of CHA. Since, it was Shri C. Srijjth, who sealed the container with a dummy OTL and escorted the contained to the CFS, the adjudicating authority has presumed that he supervised the stuffing of the goods in the factory of the exporter. But, in his statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the fact that the contraband goods having been found in the consignment entry for export and the fact that S/Shri D. Srinivasa Rao and A.M. Jamaludheen both Partners of the exporter, we are of the view that the penalties imposed on them are fully justified. 13. The only arguments advance on behalf of the two persons is that they had requested for cross-examination of the forest officials, who had certified the goods to be Red Sanders. But they alleged that the adjudicating authority, without deciding their request for cross-examination had adjudicated the show-cause notice. From the records of the case, we find that the adjudicating authority had initially rejected the request for cross-examination and the same was intimated to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
