Appellate Tribunal upholds penalty for fraudulent sandalwood export

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI upheld the adjudicating authority's decision in a case involving the fraudulent export of sandalwood chips in violation of the EXIM Policy, 1997. The goods were confiscated due to a fabricated Certificate of origin, falsely claiming a non-existent buyer and source. A penalty of &8377;1,50,000 was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the appellant failed to prove the certificate's genuineness or the existence of the buyer and source. The tribunal found the appellant's actions indicated a predetermined intent to defraud Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Alleged fraudulent export of sandalwood chips in violation of EXIM Policy, 1997; Fabrication of certificate of origin; Confiscation of goods; Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, involved the appeal of a case where the appellant was accused of attempting to export 200 gunny bags of sandalwood chips in violation of the EXIM Policy, 1997. The adjudicating authority found that the goods were not permissible for export and were confiscated due to a fabricated Certificate of origin. The certificate falsely claimed the buyer as M/s. Divya Impex Corporation, Hyderabad, procuring goods from a non-existent source, Shri R. S. Ramanujam. Investigation revealed that the certificate was fake and designed to defraud Revenue, as confirmed by the Divisional Forest Officer. The authority also discovered the non-existence of M/s. Divya Impex Corporation at the claimed premises in Hyderabad.

The adjudicating authority justified the confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,50,000 on the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The grounds of appeal and appellant's pleadings failed to establish the genuineness of the certificate or the existence of the alleged buyer and source of goods. The tribunal upheld the authority's decision, stating that the appellant had a predetermined intent to defraud Revenue, with no evidence to the contrary. The modus operandi of the appellants clearly indicated fraudulent intentions, leading to the confirmation of the adjudicating authority's order and the dismissal of the appeal.

---