9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a container bearing No.CRSU 1378497 would be containing Red Sander Logs, an item prohibited for export, the container was restrained at International Container Transshipment Terminal, Vallarpadam, Cochin on 08/01/2015. The container was declared to contain 480 nos of plywood covered under Shipping Bill No.7061124 dt. 06/01/2015 exported by M/s. Liberty Marketing, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The officers of DRI conducted detailed examination of the container on 09/01/2015 which resulted in the recovery and seizure of 11, 178 kgs of Red Sander Logs having market value of Rs. 1,90,02,600/- and international grey market value of approximately Rs. 4,47,12,000/- which were placed inside plywood boxes. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that no evidentiary value can be given to the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless the same is tested by cross-examination. It is his further submission that in the present case, in spite of the specific request by the appellant for cross-examination of other coaccused, the adjudicating authority failed to extend adequate opportunity for cross-examination of the person whose statements have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority. He further submitted that both the authorities have failed to establish that the appellant had any financial enrichment in the alleged illegal export of Red Sander. He further submitted that the requirements of Section 114AA have not been complied with in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vis-à-vis other accused who were the main conspirators and kingpins. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the original authority has discussed the entire evidence and the role of the appellant in the said smuggling. The role of the appellant has been discussed in para 46.1 and 46.2 of the Order-in-Original wherein it has been observed that the smuggling syndicate co-ordinated by Mr. K.N. Venugopal i.e. the appellant who misused the IEC code M/s. Liberty Marketing to smuggle out Red Sander, an item prohibited for export. Although one consignment was exported on behalf of M/s. Liberty Marketing prior to the impugned export, Shri Shanmugham, Director had not endorsed any of the shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he various decisions relied upon by the Revenue cited supra wherein it has been held that cross-examination cannot be claimed in every case as a matter of right. Further I find that with regard to quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, it is on a higher side because the original authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs each under Section 114 and Section 114AA on the main accused viz. Mr. Abdul Razak and Shri K.P. Sibu. In para 48(f) and 47 of the Order-in-Original, original authority has observed that Mr. Abdul Razak @ Ashraf is the prime person in the attempted smuggling of Red Sander and Mr. Sibu was the Operation Manager of the smuggling syndicate who coordinated the operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
