2014 (6) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of Potash (MOP) of fertilizer grade which was restricted goods, misdeclaring the same to be Oil Well Drilling Chemical for Industrial use, covered by shipping bill No. 11650207 dated 20.4.2010 and similar such goods exported in past consignments covered by four (4) shipping bills as depicted in Para 12 of the adjudication order, causing loss to Revenue as well as the economy since MOP is subsidised for supply to Indian farmers. Penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- was imposed on the CHA u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Along with him the appellant Sri Anil Maggo, manager and G card holder of the said CHA faced penalty of Rs. 4,00,0000/- under the said section having been involved in the above export. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of adjudi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods of past and present consignments meant for export were same MOP and there was no permission obtained by the exporter to make export of the same. 7. The seller did not turn up for examination although summons was issued. However the exporter was examined on 10.06.2010 and he brought out the story of misdeclaration and source of procurement of MOP undisputedly. The 'G' card holder appellant when was examined on 01.07.2010, he admitted to have filed the shipping bills in question on the basis of documents given to him by the exporter. 8. Moving the stay applications, it was submitted on behalf of both the appellants that goods having been seized, the appellants who did not act malafide, should not be directed for any predeposit. Le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be MOP and both past and present consignments having been procured from the same seller that cannot be different. CRCL report remained unchallenged. Accordinglly, both the say applications be dismissed when the appellants deliberately acted in defiance of law and they should be asked to deposit the penalties imposed on them for hearing their appeals. . 12. Heard both sides and perused the record. 13. Prima facie, the goods attempted to be exported by live consignment and past exports were MOP as proved from CRCL Report. No evidence came to record to rebut the charge of smuggling. The offending goods were restricted as has been held by adjudicating authority. Once the goods exported or attempted to be so, in contravention of law, witho....