Restricted export of goods and middleman involvement justified penalty, but the quantum was reduced on the facts.

Export of restricted goods was established because the goods were found to be Muriate of Potash, not industrial salt, and their export required a valid licence under the applicable DGFT notification. Confiscation of the goods was confirmed absolutely. The appellant's role as a middleman in the export arrangement was supported by the record, so penalty under the Customs Act was sustained; however, the quantum was moderated on the facts and circumstances, including the abatement of the principal exporter's appeal, and reduced from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for his role in the attempted export of restricted goods was liable to be sustained in full or reduced.

Analysis: The goods were found to be Muriate of Potash and not industrial salt, and the export of such goods was restricted under the applicable DGFT notification and required a valid licence. The confiscation of the goods was upheld as absolute. In assessing the appellant's role, the order noted that he acted as a middleman and that the material on record supported his involvement in the export arrangements. At the same time, the appeal against the principal exporter had abated, and the overall circumstances were taken into account while considering the quantum of penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellant was sustained but reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation stood confirmed and the appellant's liability was maintained only to the extent of the reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the export of restricted goods is proved and the appellant's involvement in the export arrangement is established, the penalty may be sustained, but the quantum can be moderated on the facts and circumstances of the case.

---