2018 (3) TMI 569 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds decision on Agar Wood Chips smuggling, penalties imposed

Md. Badrual Islam, Md. Jihadul Islam Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Gauhati

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA upheld the decision of the lower authorities regarding the attempted smuggling of Agar Wood Chips and Agar Oil. The ... Illegal export of goods - Agar Wood or its derivatives or extracts - restricted item - absolute confiscation - penalty - Held that: - The Agar Wood or its derivatives or extracts being an endangered species are listed in Appendix II of Conservation of International Trade in endangered species of Wild Fauna & Flora (CITES) and a restricted item. The appellants could not produce any legal documents for export to Kuwait. The documents and Transit Pass produced by the appellants in support of the goods were fake. It is noticed that the purported seller of the goods was not in existence and there was no forest Beat Office at Kohra Range. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the appellants attempted to export the goods without any valid documents. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues: Smuggling attempt, Confiscation of goods, Validity of documents, Penal action under Customs ActSmuggling Attempt:The case involved the interception of individuals at an airport with Agar Wood Chips and Agar Oil in their possession. The appellants argued that the goods were intended for sale in Mumbai, not for illegal export, as Mumbai is part of Indian territory. However, the Customs Officers found discrepancies in the appellants' travel plans and documents. It was revealed that the documents produced in support of the goods were fake, and there was no valid certification for the export of the endangered species. The lower authorities concluded that there was an attempt to smuggle the goods to Kuwait without proper documentation, leading to confiscation under Section 113(d) & (g) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were held liable for penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.Confiscation of Goods:The Commissioner (Appeals) and the adjudicating authority confiscated the Agar Wood, Agar Oil, and Kuwaiti Dinars absolutely, imposing penalties on the appellants. The lower authorities found that the appellants had attempted to transport the goods without valid documents, leading to the decision of confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants disputed these findings, but the Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the appellants had indeed attempted to export the goods without legal authorization.Validity of Documents:The Customs Officers recovered Indian passports from both appellants, along with an electronic ticket receipt for a flight to Mumbai and then to Kuwait. However, it was found that the documents and transit passes produced by the appellants were fake. The purported seller of the goods did not exist, and there was no forest Beat Office at the specified range. These discrepancies in the documents supported the conclusion that the appellants were attempting to export the goods without valid legal documentation, leading to the rejection of their appeals.Penal Action under Customs Act:The adjudicating authority held both appellants liable for penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to their involvement in the attempted smuggling of the goods. Additionally, the Kuwaiti Dinars recovered from one of the appellants were deemed as the sale proceeds of previously smuggled goods and were subject to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal affirmed the penal actions taken by the lower authorities, emphasizing that the appellants' actions constituted an illegal attempt to export restricted items without proper authorization.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA upheld the decision of the lower authorities regarding the attempted smuggling of Agar Wood Chips and Agar Oil, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. The discrepancies in the documents provided by the appellants supported the findings of illegal export attempts, resulting in the rejection of their appeals.