Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Exporting Prohibited Red Sanders Wood Due to Lack of Due Diligence.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, a consolidator, affirming the penalty imposed for exporting prohibited goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to conduct the necessary inquiry before dispatching the consignment containing Red Sanders wood, a violation under the Wild Life Protection Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing the appellant's duty to ensure compliance with export regulations. Despite arguments regarding the involvement of a Chinese individual, the Tribunal found sufficient circumstantial evidence of the appellant's awareness and responsibility, thereby confirming the original order and dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 246/2015 dated 13.05.2015 regarding the export consignment containing prohibited goods.
2. Liability of the appellant as a consolidator for dispatching goods without proper inquiry.
3. Justification of penalty imposed on the appellant for the export of prohibited goods.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 246/2015 dated 13.05.2015, concerning an incident where the appellant, a consolidator for export parcels, dispatched a consignment through Fedex in January 2012. The consignment, weighing about 1000 Kgs, was found to contain prohibited goods, specifically Red Sanders wood, listed under the Wild Life Protection Act. The appellant claimed that a Chinese individual provided the goods, but the department imposed a penalty on the appellant for the violation.

2. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties' counsels, where the appellant's counsel contended that the Chinese individual involved was not examined by the department and faced no punishment, leaving the country. The appellant, as a consolidator, was responsible for preparing the export parcel, but the proper inquiry was allegedly not conducted or overlooked in this case. The counsel argued that the penalty should be canceled. On the other hand, the department's representative supported the penalty imposed in the impugned order.

3. After considering the submissions and evidence on record, the Tribunal noted that as a consolidator, it was the appellant's duty to ensure proper dispatch of goods after conducting a thorough inquiry, which was not done in this instance. The Tribunal found circumstantial evidence indicating the appellant's awareness of the prohibited goods, which was deemed against national interests. Despite recognizing the limitations on the Tribunal's power to enhance penalties, it upheld the impugned order, confirming the penalty imposed on the appellant for the export of prohibited goods. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, affirming the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision confirmed the penalty on the appellant for the export of prohibited goods due to the appellant's failure to fulfill the duty of inquiry as a consolidator, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---