9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, there is no evidence placed in this regard. Here in the case on hand, the appellant is found to have blamed his ex-employee, the another person for misusing his signature / office seal but, however, no supporting document is filed and hence, the initial burden stands undischarged. Section 114 empowers levy of penalty for attempt to export goods improperly and it is not specific to the exporter alone. In the case on hand, since the exporter had accepted the Order in Original by not challenging the same, the fact of improper export stands proved and the appellant s role being a CHA who filed shipping bills, thus becomes any person u/s 114 - There is also no rebuttal as to the finding of the Revenue authorities that his license had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unit Price Drawback involved (In Rs.) 1. 2845903 17.3.2011 100% cotton woven mens shirt 90 / 10300 3146650 5 Euro 2,35,999 2. 2845917 17.3.2011 - do - 60 / 7200 2199600 5 Euro 1,64,970 3. 2907296 23.3.2011 100% cotton knitted mens boxer brief 40 / 5760 1108368 4.3 USD 83,128 4. 2907300 23.3.2011 - do - 31 / 4424 851288 4.3 USD 63,847 The following facts emerge from the above: - (i) In respect of consignments covered under Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, upon examination, the Revenue appear to have found junk garments which were unfit for usage, packed neatly in the carton boxes with proper labels. The total value of the cargo assessed by the Revenue was Rs.30,000/- against the declared FOB value in the shipping bills of Rs.53.46 lakhs against which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al memo. 4. The original authority having considered the explanation filed by the notices and also after hearing them, passed a common Order in Original dated 28.12.2012 wherein he has confirmed the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice, has imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the appellant herein under sec. 114(iii) and 114AA of the Act ibid. Aggrieved by the above penalty, it appears that the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority after hearing the appellant, vide impugned Order in Appeal No. 50/2013 dated 23.5.2013 has however reduced the quantum of penalty levied, from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and it is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hera Shipping Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2022 (382) ELT 552 (Tri. Chennai) (e) Final Order No. 40042 40043/2023 dated 8.2.2023 passed by CESTAT, Chennai in the case of Chakiat Agencies Anr. He would thus request for deleting of penalty in toto. 6. Per contra, Smt. O.M. Reena, learned Additional Commissioner appearing for the Revenue defended the orders of the lower authorities. She would contend that in his statement, the appellant has admitted as to the using of his license without his knowledge but however has also admitted about his practice of signing on the documents to enable others to file the shipping bills. She would also contend that even though the appellant has alleged that it was one Suresh, his ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has used my CHA and appended his signature are not a known party to me. It is the mischief of Mr. R.K. Nithyanandam who used my name and signature for his wrongful gain without my knowledge. He has thus alleged that the signatures found on the shipping bills were not his but however for the misuse or forgery of the signature, apparently no police complaint has been filed. In the grounds of appeal before us, a ground has been taken that the appellant had already lodged a complaint with the police for forging his signature but, however, the same is not found either in the reply to Show Cause Notice or anywhere in the Order in Original as well. Moreover, the status of the same, if an FIR was lodged, has also not been furnished before us an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on earlier two occasions which should have been taken seriously by the appellant to prevent further misuse and the same should have acted as a deterrent but, however, the appellant appears to have allowed the further misuse of his CHA license which has resulted in filing the shipping bills in question. 11. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate on various judicial pronouncements are distinguishable on facts; in all those cases the issue was relating to obligations of CHA vis- -vis KYC/exporter whereas in the present case the issue is per se statutory obligation of CHA under CHALR, 2004. 12. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority and hence, we dismiss the appeal. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
