9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bs in the export consignment of M/s. Mahadev Granites [IEC No. 0416921540], S.F. No. 222/2-B, Seemanoor Road, Near SIDCO Industrial Area, Bargur, Krishnagiri - 635 104, covered under Shipping Bill No. 6322375 dated 19.07.2018 in a 20 feet container No. GESU 2299359 to the overseas buyer M/s. Megamax Import & Export Lot 1054, Tingkat I Komplex Karamunsing, 88000 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia; that in pursuance of the said intelligence, DRI-CZU had recalled the said container, which was already exported in vessel BALTHASAR SCHULTE from CITPL Terminal, Chennai; that the said container was offloaded at M/s. Adani Kattupalli Private Port Limited [AKPPL] from the same vessel on 10.08.2018; that the detained container was moved to M/s. Sattva Hi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als of the overseas buyers and that the export was allowed to be handled by one Shri Ramesh who owned a fictitious firm, whose whereabouts were not known to the Revenue; that the appellant did not attempt to obtain the KYC details of Shri Ramesh; that by his various acts of omission and commission, the appellant had abetted the offence committed by Shri Ramesh to file the Shipping Bills and other documents, for which he received huge amount in cash; that the above act of omission and commission had rendered the goods in question liable to confiscation under Sections 113(d), 113(f), 113(g), 113(h), 113 (i) and 113 (k) of the Customs Act, 1962, etc. The penalty was challenged before the First Appellate Authority and the Commissioner of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exist the moment the goods were stuffed in the container and sealed by the Customs officers and handed over to the custodian of cargo. 4.2 He relied on the following decisions: (a) S.P. Bahl v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2015 (319) E.L.T. 157 (Tri. - Mum)]; (b) Sameer Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Commr. of Cus. (Import-II), Mumbai [2018 (362) E.L.T. 348 (Tri. - Mum.)]; (c) M/s. Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills P. Ltd. v. C.C., Tuticorin [2019 (370) E.L.T. 1681 (Tri. - Chennai)]; (d) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M/s. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. [2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)]; (e) Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Surat v. M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. [2015 (326) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]; (f) M/s. Swapne Nagari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he knowledge of the person. That means, the appellant in the case on hand against whom the liability is fastened must be aware as to what is happening right from the beginning. 7.1 It is interesting to note a part of the Show Cause Notice dated 01.02.2019, at paragraph 2, which reads as under: "02. .... ...On closer examination of the said container, Shri M. Annamalai, Surveyor, representing M/s. Excellmax Surveyors International informed that the container was tampered with by way of replacing the one time rivets of both the handles on the right side of the said container with screw type rivets. Thereafter, the said Red Sanders logs weighing 15.665 Metric Tons, totally valued at Rs. 6,26,60,000/- and the Container number GESU 2299359 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
