TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) have reduced the penalty to Rs. 30,000/-. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The appellant CHA filed 5 shipping bills on 11.09.2009 on behalf of merchant exporter - M/s. A.S. Exports having IEC number 0304014834, having its office at Vasai-West, Thane. The consignment said to contain 'Indian Hand Tufted Woollen Floor Covering Carpets' and 'Indian Floor Covering Carpets'. The said consignments was passed by the Examiner of Customs and let export order was issued on 16/09/2009. Subsequently the said consignments was passed by the Examiner of Customs and let export order was issued on 16/09/2009. Subsequently the said consignments were detained and subjected to 100% examination. From the show-ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per agreement between the exporter and the consignee the mode of payment was direct. As it was found that the export was mis-declared (carpet area or size of the carpets) accordingly the same was found to be liable to confiscation. It is further relevant that the export benefit is related to the size of the carpet exported from India (i.e. per sq ft.). To ascertain the value of the carpets the services of approved valuer was taken by the Revenue. The said valuer reported that the value as declared per unit square feet should be accepted by the Department. However on the basis of actual quantity found on examination, the value of consignment should be re-calculated. Accordingly that the said value was determined and duty drawback worked out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orisation. Further no allegation is made by the exporters implicating the CHA, in the mis-declaration of the area of the carpets under export. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the common order dated 24.01.2012 where by the let export order was cancelled. The total area of the carpets was found at 21,541.09 sq. fit and same was held liable to confiscation under Section 113(iii) of the Act. The exporter was further given opportunity to redeem under Section 125 by paying fine of Rs. 10 lacs with further permission to export the consignment after ensuring that the quantity and the value are correctly mentioned in the shipping bill. As regards the present appellant a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 1114(iii) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eful. No lapse in particular is pointed out in discharging the duty of the CHA. Further in view of the consignment duly examined by the Customs Officers and let export order issued, no misgiving can be alleged on the part of the CHA for any discrepancy found on 2nd examination. As regards the ruling relied by the Commissioner (Appeal) in the case of Vishwanath Shipping Agency (P) Limited 2011 (270) ELT 140, it is stated the same is not relevant as in that case the exporter was found non-existent and fictitious. Such facts are not obtaining in the present case. SO far the other ruling is concerned relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Sundaram Finance vs. Commissioner of Customs 2012 (279) LT 220 (Tri-Mad) the same is in respect of pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the documents submitted by the exporter and also identify the exporters to the Customs Authorities. In the present facts and circumstances also the CHA have been able to identify the exporters and further no mis-declaration is found to have been made with the aid of the CHA. That he prays for setting aside the penalty imposed in full. 7. The learned A.R. relies on the impugned order. The respondent have also filed cross objection, taking the ground that as the exporter is found to be guilty of mis-declaration the appellant CHA being his agent is also responsible for the same. Accordingly prays for confirming the impugned order. 8. Having heard the parties and gone through the records, I find that under the facts and circumstances that....