9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel that after filing the shipping bill, as they had not got documents from the exporter, they did not pursue the matter so as to get the shipping bill registered. On perusal of the records, there are no evidence established against the appellant to show that they have abetted in the attempt to export the prohibited goods namely Star Tortoises. In para 51 of the Order in Original, the original authority has stated that Shri P. Thirumoorthy, Manager of M/s. AKR Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. has failed to exercise due diligence and has not been able to furnish KYC documents. It is also stated that he has lend his Customs Broker card to one Shri Gokula Kannan who was not an employee of the company to handle the export. All these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estined for Malaysia. 2.1 Consequently, searches were conducted and statements were recorded. Show Cause Notice was issued to several persons including the appellants herein. After due process of law, the original authority vide order dated 17.11.2020 dropped the proceedings against M/s. Daily Fresh Exports and Imports and its proprietor Shri S. Yoganathan. A penalty of Rs.one lakh each was imposed on the appellants under sec. 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. They filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel Ms. A. Aruna appeared and argued for the appellants. She submitted that the appellant as a Customs Broker had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Star Tortoises were recovered and seized outside the Customs area and therefore confiscation under sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequent penalties cannot sustain. 7. The subject shipping bills pertains to Chennai VII Commissionerate and the searches were done by Chennai III Commissionerate. The said Commissionerate has no jurisdiction over Chennai VII Commissionerate. Hence the Show Cause Notice issued based on the investigation done by Chennai III Commissionerate is without jurisdiction. She prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 8. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the respondent. With regard to the allegation that the Show Cause Notice does not contain the proposal for confiscation of the goods, he submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rumoorthy, Manager of M/s. AKR Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. has failed to exercise due diligence and has not been able to furnish KYC documents. It is also stated that he has lend his Customs Broker card to one Shri Gokula Kannan who was not an employee of the company to handle the export. All these allegations if any, would fall under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. No evidence has been adduced to show that the appellant has connived with the exporter in the attempt to export the goods. 12. More importantly, on perusal of the Show Cause Notice, it is vaguely stated in para 20 that the goods are liable for confiscation. However, from para 35 onwards, there is no proposal to confiscate the goods. This is a serious error in the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
