TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....K. Singh, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appellant was a manager of CHA firm, M/s.S.J. International. The officers of Customs investigated a case of improper export of Muriate of Potash/Potassium Chloride, which is a restricted item mis-declared as Oil Well Chemicals. On conclusion of inquiries, proceedings were initiated against the exporter and among others, the present appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the CHA and he can be charged for penal consequences for attempting export of restricted items. 4. We have hard both the sides and perused the care record. 5. The only point for decision is liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The same are reproduced as below:- "Provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 114. Penalty for attempt to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater.] 6. In the present case, the exporters have been penalized and the goods were ordered to be confiscated. No action is recorded against CHA for any violation of the provisions of CHALR or Customs Act, 1962. As correctly recorded by the Original Authority, it is surprising that no i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are unable to ascertain what provisions of the CHALR could have been applied for an employee of CHA as the CHA itself was not proceeded with any offence. The provisions of Section 114, as reproduced above, make it clear that a person, who is involved in doing or omitted to do certain act which will make the goods liable for confiscation is liable or penalty and also a person, who abets in such doi....