9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods and thereby abetted illegal export of goods - absence of admissible evidence - HELD THAT:- On bare perusal of the SCN and impugned order, it is admitted that the Appellant had arranged 15 lorries for transportation of goods. But there is no evidence adduced by the investigating agency to allege that the Appellant had knowledge regarding the presence of Muriate of Potash in the above c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , MEMBER (T) Shri K. Vishwanath, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER In the present appeal, Appellant is challenging the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the Appellant under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. When the matter came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. As per the records, the appeal was posted on 28-6-2023, 4-8-2023 and thereafter poste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods. There is no averment either in the SCN nor in the impugned order that Appellant was aware about the presence of Muriate of Potash in the container while arranging lorries for shipment of the goods. Though it is admitted that the Appellant had arranged lorries, same cannot be a reason for imposing penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further finds that while record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging transport. While considering the very same issue, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 25574/2013, dated 15-7-2013, set aside the penalty on the ground that It is that the appellant or his agent or driver of the vehicle or person in-charge of conveyance did not have knowledge of nature of the goods being transported. Moreover it is not the case of the department that the Appellant who had arra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
