2007 (2) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs.25,000/- imposed on them by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 2. It appears from the records that the appellants had filed Shipping Bill No. 4653 dated 24-12-1998 on behalf of M/s. Arul Jothi Garments, Tirupur (exporter) for clearance of a consignment of garments for export. The goods were examined on 30-12-1998 and 'let export order' issued on the same date as it appear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1998. After a scrutiny of the records, the Commissioner found that the goods entered the port on 31-12-1998 and were stuffed on that date but subsequently destuffed on 13-1-1999. The shipping bill, however, indicated entry of the goods into the port, its examination and stuffing, and issuance of 'let export order', to have taken place on 30-12-1998. Accordingly, it was found that there was no corr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one was liable for penalty. Learned Counsel reiterates this ground today. We have heard learned SDR also. 4. It is settled law that, in respect of goods already exported out of the country, the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs are invocable. For a penalty under Section 114 on an erring exporter or his conniving agent, it is enough if the export goods are found to be liable for confiscat....