2009 (10) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment of polished granite tiles. When the consignment reached the Chennai Port, officers of DRI inspected the container and the cargo. It was found that the one-time seal and the Customs seal affixed on the container were intact. The rivets at the other end of the container doors had been deftly cut and the container stuffed with red sanders logs. Further investigation revealed that two persons by name S/Sh. Muralikrishna and Ramesh had befriended the exporter as representatives of the buyer in Malaysia. They behaved with the authorities as if they represented the exporter. The goods were examined at the ICD, Bangalore in the presence of S/Sh. Muralikrishna, Ramesh and the representative of the CHA and the container sealed. M/s. Caravel Shi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the findings of the Commissioner as regards the roles of the appellants in the offending transactions. The Commissioner had not found any active or positive role on the part of the appellants in rendering the seized red sander logs liable for confiscation. Therefore, they pray that the predeposit of penalties may be waived and their recovery. 2. Ld. JDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties. We observe from the impugned order that the Commissioner has found that the exporter had not behaved in a responsible and sensible manner. They had entrusted the export goods with two unknown persons S/Sh. Muralikrishna and Ramesh to transport the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne other similar consignments have been exported adopting the similar modus operandi. He states that the exporter should have been careful in ensuring that the container is not tampered with and the goods are not substituted. 2. Shri B. Venugopal, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant exporter states that the exporters are not involved in the smuggling of red sanders nor any evidence has been found to that effect. On the other hand, the adjudicating Commissioner has given a clean chit to the exporter but has penalized them on mere suspicion. He also refers to Circular No. 57/98-Cus dated 4-8-98 under which it is specified under para-6 that the custodian would be required to move the goods by road or rail upto the gateway port/airport....
TaxTMI