2016 (11) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, in Final Order No.40782/2016, dated 18.05.2016. 2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has obtained an Import Export Code (in short IEC ), but, however, since he could not carry on the import and export business fruitfully, permitted the IEC to be used by a person known to him (very closely) and that too for a consideration, though for a very insignificant amount. 3. A shipping bill for export has been lodged on 23rd November 2009, in the name of the appellant herein and the Customs House Agent being M/s.Anchorage Shipping, Coimbatore. The goods intended to be exported are described as 'Incense Raw Material' of 20.50 Metric Tonnes. Upon verification of the goods, a su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtue of Section 11 of the said Act or under any other law for the time being in force any attempt of export of such goods would render them liable to be confiscated. Consequently, the goods which are sought to be exported in the name of the appellant herein, have rendered themselves liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the said Act. 5. Under Section 114 of the said Act, any person who chooses or omits to do any act, which act has rendered the goods liable for confiscation, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods as declared by the Exporter or the value as determined under the said Act, whichever is greater. Consequently, the appellant has also exposed himself to the liability of imposition of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsequences which follow from Sections 113 and 114 of the said Act, cannot be avoided. 9. However, what still remains to be examined by us is the justification behind the adjudicating authority in imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant before us, while all others, including the individual who has misused the IEC of the appellant and also the Customs House Agent, were imposed with lesser punishment of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus the appellant has been singled out for the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, even though this explanation was used to penalise the abuser of the IEC. 10. As we have noticed, Section 114 of the said Act has provided for discretion in the hands of the Adjudicating Authority to impose a pen....