2014 (1) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, DC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed these appeal against Order-in-Original whereby the ld. Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. Since common issue is involved, therefore they are taken up for disposal, together. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the same, the appellants are in appeal. 4. So far as the allegation that they did not exercise proper care despite knowing the capability that the exporter is not in position to export such high magnitude of the export, they did not bring into notice of the department that the exporter is about to claim undue drawback, the contention of the appellants is that the exporter has submitted I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ese factors and should have brought to the notice of the department so that the attempt to smuggling of goods could have been taken with. The penalty has been imposed against the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 which is reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference :- "SECTION 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc. - Any person who, in relat....