9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Bills (AWB) were detained by Customs Officers vide Detention Memo dated 12-2-2012 and 19-2-2012 on a suspicion that the goods covered thereunder are prohibited goods in terms of Wilde Life (Protection) Act, Exim Policy and CITES. The Customs Department referred the matter to the Wild Life Inspectors for confirmation regarding the contents of the export cargo. Accordingly, they submitted the report on detention receipts of respective AWB, confirming that the goods being exported were Red Sanders (Pterocorpus Santalinus) wood, which is prohibited for export in terms of Wild Life (Protection) Act and CITES. On the basis of such report received from the Wild Life Department, the Customs Department proceeded against various agencies/persons, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as projector brackets. Thus, he submitted that the appellant had no reason or occasion to inspect the contents and bonafidely relied on the declaration made by the consigner. It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate that in absence of any substantiation by the Department that the appellant had the prior knowledge regarding the contents of the courier parcel, penalties cannot be imposed under Section 114(i) ibid. To support such stand, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the following judicial pronouncements :- (a) Shri Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1975) 3 SCC 495] (b) M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa [1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.)] (c) Akbar Badruddin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ife Inspectors in respect of 6 Nos. of Memos, it cannot be said that all the goods covered under the shipping bills are red sanders, liable for confiscation. Further, the Detention Memos do not identify any method and procedure adopted by the Wild Life Department for arriving at the conclusion that the description of goods declared by the exporter is false or incorrect. The fact is not under dispute that the Department did not examine any Wild Life Inspectors, even if, request was made by the appellant for cross-examination of those persons. Further, it is noted that the competent authority to examine the type of wood, would be the experts in the Forest Department. It is not clear as to why no reference or opinion was taken from them. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
