9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force as no express order was passed to that effect. Penalty being punitive in nature admittedly gets abated on the death of the person and in view of such legal position, penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- imposed on deceased Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne is abated on his death that occoured on 21.10.2009. Penalty on other appellant have been set aside vide earlier order of this Tribunal and therefore the issue of confiscation of goods by the respondent department is required to be scrutinised in this appeal to determine its legally. Statement of the Partner of CHA Mr. Parvez Jehangir Irani was relied upon by the respondent Department to arrived at the conclusion that RITC number was mis-quoted as 44072910 instead of 44011000 but going by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) None for Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Order of confiscation of 537 number of teak wood blocks valued at ₹ 21,02,287/- in 2008 under section 113(d) (h) of the Customs Act (CA) with option for back to town on payment of redemption fine of 5 lakhs under Section 125 of the CA along with penalty of 2 lakhs under section 114(1) of the CA on deceased M/s Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that deceased Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne a national of the Netherlands purchased 575 numbers of old used Burma teak wood of an old building from one M/s Manav Impex of Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 requesting the Commissioner of Customs to reconsider the case and allow the appellant to take back the goods detained at CFS. 3. Vide show-cause notice dated 18.12.2008, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CFS Mulund, Mumbai asked the appellant and others to submits their reply as to why the goods were not to be considered as prohibited for export under the provisions of EXIM Policy, Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 and Customs Act, 1962, confiscated under Section 113(d) (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should be imposed on them under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962? The appellant filed a detailed reply to the aforementioned show-cause notice, the matter was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al for which matter was heard on 08.08.2018, from the respondent side alone, in the absence of appellant for passing of orders as per Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982. 6. Admittedly, appellant Mr. Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne death with effect from 21.10.2009 has been acknowledged by this Tribunal but penalty continue to be in force as no express order was passed to that effect. Penalty being punitive in nature admittedly gets abated on the death of the person and in view of such legal position, penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- imposed on deceased Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne is abated on his death that occoured on 21.10.2009. Penalty on other appellant have been set aside vide earlier order of this Tribunal and therefore the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Forest Department, though the Forest Department has indicated the wood as old wood of the old building. The deceased appellant claims the same to be imported Burmese teak wood while the show-cause notice indicates that the baggage consist of blocks of wooden blocks of 537 numbers having total weight 10,652 Kgs. against declared number of 533 and weight of 11,230 kgs. Statement of the Partner of CHA Mr. Parvez Jehangir Irani was relied upon by the respondent Department to arrived at the conclusion that RITC number was mis-quoted as 44072910 instead of 44011000 but going by the relevant provisions of Section 3 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 as well as Chapter 44 under Schedule-II of EXIM Policy, it can very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and approximately 10% variation on both sides is not that fatal when weight is not a consideration for determination of duty liability, since the same duty liability for the goods is NIL. Further there is a variation of 4 pieces of counting of blocks which deceased appellant is stated to have declared at 533 blocks and physical counting by the Department brought the figure to 537 and such variation could be unintentional arithmetical error since in so doing by the deceased appellant, there is no revenue loss for the respondent-department or financial gain for the deceased appellant. The learned Commissioner has also held that such misdeclaration in the shipping bill is violative of Section 50 of Customs Act and ultimately confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
