9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity of the nature involved in the present case, the recipient/buyer would be least interested in knowing this. Because, otherwise, the buyer would have right royally bought from the open market after paying all necessary/applicable duties rather than choosing a shortcut of smuggling. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 40237- 40238 of 2017 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40028-40029 / 2020 - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. A. Thiyagarajan, Ld. Senior Advocate for the Appellant Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER These appeals are filed against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Tiruchirappalli dated 19.04.2016 in Orders-in-Appeal No. 50 51/2016. 2. It is the case of the Department that based on the specific intelligence that persons travelling in a black colour PULSE car bearing Registration No. TN18 M 8059 were attempting to smuggle Red Sanders Logs out of India and on enquiry after interception of the said car, persons travelling in the car identified themselves as S/Shri S. Karuppiah @ Manoharan, Ravi K. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red sanders valued at ₹ 4,33,35,000/- under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962; ii) Ordered confiscation of 2.910 MT of Cabbage, valued at ₹ 10,000/- used for concealing red sanders, under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962; iii) Held that the said 2.910 MT of cabbage found to be rotten and unfit for consumption which was destroyed, as properly disposed off; iv) Ordered confiscation of Ashok Leyland Truck bearing fake registration No. TN 63 AB 6825 (actual registration no. being AP 03 U 7977), valued at ₹ 6,40,000/-, under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; v) Imposed penalty on the following persons including appellants herein, under Section 114 of the Act ibid as follows:- Name S/Shri. Amount of Penalty (in Rupees) Karuppiah @ Manoharan 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakh only) Ravi K. Sadanand 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) Senthil Ram 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) Subba Reddy 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized Representative for the Revenue argued that the weight of the contraband article found in the truck tallied with the voluntary statements given by the appellant. His further submissions can be summarized as under:- (i) They have not denied their presence at the time and spot on the eventful day; (ii) The appellant Shri. Karuppiah @ Manoharan was the mastermind behind the operation since he had purchased the red sanders logs on earlier occasions also, illegally; (iii) That the appellants jointly contributed to the attempted export of 1.6MTs of red sanders by illicit means; (iv) The entire scheme/modus operandi has been very succinctly recorded at paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36 of the Order-in-Original as also at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order-in-Appeal which have not at all been questioned; (v) Voluntary statements of all the persons stand against them so also the chain of events narrated by each of them speaks of the scheme to smuggle contraband in which they almost succeeded but for timely interception, which would have resulted in the revenue loss to the Nation; (vi) Irrespective of whether the appellants are the buyers or sellers, they having abetted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. 10.5 The Adjudicating Authority has also traced the owner of the truck/lorry that was carrying the contraband and arrived at the conclusion that the same was with a fake registration number to mislead the investigation. This also stands unchallenged. 10.6 The appellants having accepted in their voluntary statements about their involvements, have not brought anything on record to doubt the veracity of the findings or conclusions drawn by the Adjudicating Authority. Even though it has all along been argued that they did not claim ownership of either the truck or the contraband that was seized, they have not submitted any documentary evidence about their role/activity at the time, date and place when the interception took place. Having accepted in their voluntary statements as to their role, they prevented further investigations into the issue and therefore, on a much later date they cannot turn around to say that their statements were not voluntary. Moreover, it is not a case where the penalty was levied based only on their statements; Revenue has linked each and every chain in the whole loop of the master plan to smuggle the contraband by identifying the involvement and ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iii) in the case of any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater. 14 . In this case, the evidence on record and the statements of various persons clearly goes to show the complicity of the respondent in the act, which render the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. He also abetted in doing such acts, which render the goods liable for confiscation. That finding of the Commissioner is not in dispute. The Tribunal on an erroneous interpretation of Section 113 read with 114 of the Customs Act has come to hold that no penalty is leviable. 15 . Here is a case where the findings of the Commissioner, on fact, supported by documents and the statement of indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
