9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out in the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2013 issued by the DRI, copy of which has been placed before us by the learned Counsel for the respondent/exporter, it is found that there is no specific allegation against the respondent/company connecting them with the attempt to export Red Sanders Wooden Logs which are prohibited item. The appellant department proceeded against the respondent by assuming that the respondent should be held responsible for the contraband being stuffed inside the container. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Tribunal and it referred to various documents more particularly the Panchanama dated 19.09.2012 in which it has been specifically stated that the seal number as mentioned on the export docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l transporter operator has to prove that no fault or neglect on his part or that of his servants or agents and he has not contributed to such loss, damage or delay. The final fact-finding authority, namely, the Tribunal has re-examined the factual position and returned a finding based on documents that there is no evidence produced by the appellant department to fix the respondent/exporter with an attempt to export Red Sanders Wooden Logs - no question of law much less substantial question of law arisen for consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. - IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA 2026 of 2017) In CUSTA 6 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2021 - THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of removal and also CBEC Circular No.999/6/2015-CX dated February 28, 2015. We have heard Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Anurag Bagaria, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/exporter. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act dated 15th March, 2013. In the said show cause notice there are five noticees of whom the respondent was the first noticee. The allegation was that there was an attempt to export Red Sanders Wooden Logs which attempt was foiled by the department and after investigation the DRI issued show cause notice. The proposal of the show cause notice as against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned substantial questions of law. After elaborately hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the entire matter is fully factual and no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration. We support such conclusion with the following reasons. As pointed out earlier in the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2013 issued by the DRI, copy of which has been placed before us by the learned Counsel for the respondent/exporter, we find that there is no specific allegation against the respondent/company connecting them with the attempt to export Red Sanders Wooden Logs which are prohibited item. The appellant department proceeded against the respondent by assuming that the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our view, rightly held that the adjudicating authority in the order in original dated 23rd February, 2015 fixed the responsibility on the respondent/exporter based on presumption and assumption and admittedly the appellant department were unable to produce any record to connect the respondent with the presence of the contraband which was found inside the container with the seal intact at the time when the container was taken for examination. Furthermore, the Tribunal took note of Section 13 of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 whereunder the multimodal transport operator has been fixed with the responsibility of the cargo for any loss/damage or delay in delivery of consignment etc. If the multimodal transporter has to wrigg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the impugned order. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/exporter placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Madras in Paripooranam Steel Traders versus- Assistant Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 475 (Madras) for the proposition that the case before us is fully factual and there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration. As pointed out earlier, the final fact-finding authority, namely, the Tribunal has re-examined the factual position and returned a finding based on documents that there is no evidence produced by the appellant department to fix the respondent/exporter with an attempt to export Red Sanders Wooden Logs. Thus, for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
