9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against three shipping bills, challenges penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on the ground that they had nothing to do with the procurement as to be aware of any details thereof and that the order [ order-in-original no. 28/2012 dated 28th September 2012 ] of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva had, contrary to the circumstances in which the offence was sought to be fastened on them, placed emphasis on some earlier consignments handled by them for the same exporter only to enhance the gravity of alleged consequence. 2. The appellant had filed 3 nos. shipping bills, viz., no. 8547510/11.06.2001, 8547238/11.06.2001 and 8547512/11.06.2001, for export of 25,524 pieces of 'ready made garments' valued at Rs. 91,63,503 against claim for drawback ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort provided by the DGFT New Delhi showed that Shri Deepak Kumar Arora, son of Shri Pawan Kumar Arora is the only proprietor of M/s Pearl Enterprises (IEC No. 0508039444). As per the records, Shri Riyaz Ahamed is no way related to the said firm. I find that the CHA had received documents from an unauthorized person without verifying genuineness of the exporter, the export documents and the goods under export, and filed the shipping bills on behalf of M/s Pearl Enterprises for customs clearance. The act of CHA proved beyond doubt that they had abetted and connived with the exporter in getting inadmissible drawback claims, which attracts penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. a. Their version was that they were not aware of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fastened on the impugned goods, for being misdeclared with intent to claim drawback in excess of entitlement. The claim itself was for Rs. 9,54,699 which, on not being found acceptable, was not curtailed to eligible extent but confiscated absolutely to effectively deny it in entirety. There is no finding on the foreclosure of option to redeem under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. We find that nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the appellant was concerned with any aspect of procurement prior to entering of goods for export to be cognizant of the fabric used or the purchase value. It is only owing to absence of any defence on the part of the exporter that the facts came to be unchallengeable qua the appellant also. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
