TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Adjudication on Illegal Export Attempt to Nepal: Confiscation upheld with reduced penalties for some.</h1> The Adjudicating Authority confiscated goods and a truck, imposing penalties on individuals associated with an alleged illegal export attempt to Nepal. ... Smuggling - Urea Fertiliser - illegal export - seizure of truck - penalty - Held that: - initially, Shri Om Prakash, Proprietor of M/s. Om Khad Beej Bhandar, disowned the goods before the Adjudicating Authority and it was claimed before the Commissioner (Appeal). There is a clear link between Shri Omprakash and Shri Niranjan Rai and therefore, imposition of penalty is justified. However, the quantum of penalty is excessive - penalty imposed on Shri Niranjan Rai and Shri Omprakash are reduced to ₹ 25,000/-. There is no material available that Shri Shiv Kumar Shastri had any knowledge of illegal attempt of export of goods. On perusal of the statement of the driver of the seized truck would not show any knowledge of the driver of the truck of the attempt of illegal export. Therefore, the confiscation of the seized truck and the imposition of penalty on Shri Shiv Kr. Shastri are not justified. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues: Seizure of goods and truck, imposition of penalties on individuals involved, ownership claims, confiscation of goods based on illegal export attempt.Analysis:1. The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with DAP fertilizer, suspected of illegal export to Nepal without valid documents. The truck was seized, and penalties were imposed on the individuals associated with the goods. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and truck, imposing fines and penalties on the appellants.2. The main argument presented was that the confiscation was based on assumptions and presumptions. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no intent for illegal export, citing various decisions. The Commissioner (Appeal) found discrepancies in ownership claims by Shri Om Prakash, establishing his involvement. As no one claimed ownership before the Adjudicating Authority, the confiscation was upheld. The penalty on Shri Niranjan Rai was justified due to the link established between him and Shri Om Prakash, although the quantum was deemed excessive.3. Regarding the seizure of the truck and penalty on Shri Shiv Kumar Shastri, it was noted that there was no evidence of his knowledge of the illegal export attempt. The driver's statement did not indicate awareness of the situation, leading to the conclusion that the confiscation and penalty on Shri Shiv Kumar Shastri were unwarranted.4. Consequently, the appeal by Shri Shiv Kumar Shastri was allowed, and the penalties on Shri Niranjan Rai and Shri Om Prakash were reduced. The penalties were decreased to Rs. 25,000 each, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on 09/05/2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
