TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2093321, dated 25.10.2006 was filed by M/s. Rare Craft Overseas, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as "RCO"] for export of certain "Indian Artistic Handicrafts" totaling to 114 cartons. S/Shri D. Srinivasa Rao and A.M. Jamaludheen were partners of RCO. The Shipping Bill was filed by the exporter through CHA, M/s. Glow Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Shri R. Ramesh, Manager and Shri K. Shanmugam, Executive (Operations) of the above CHA firm. The goods proposed to be exported by RCO was got certified by the Senior Assistant Director, Regional Design and Technical Development Centre, Delhi. The above authority vide their certificated dated 23.10.2006 certified the items covered under the export invoices to be in the nature of "Indian Handicrafts". The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority, passed the following order:- (i) The export goods were ordered for confiscation under section 113(d)(h)(i) as prohibited goods as well as other goods used to conceal the prohibited goods under section 118(b) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Penalties were levied as follows:- S.No. Name S/Shri Designation Amt. of Penalty (in Rs.) 01 D.M. Srinivasa Rao Partner of RCO 7,50,000 02 A.M. Jamaludheen Partner of RCO 7,50,000 03 R. Ramesh Manager of GFLPL 3,75,000 04 K. Shanmugam Executive (Operations) of GFLPL 5,00,000 05 C. Srijith Branch Manager of ILFF 5,00,000 The above findings have been challenged in the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CHA for filing the shipping bill. He submitted that Shri C. Srijith was not involved and never had knowledge about the persons of contraband in the export consignments; and (iii) He also relied on various case laws as detailed below:- (a) M/s. H.S. Cox & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T.621 (Tri. -Mumbai); and (b) M/s. H.S. Cox & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T.621 (Tri. -Mumbai). 5. Opposing the above contentions, the learned Departmental Representative justified the penalties imposed on the above three persons. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of S/Shri R. Ramesh and K. Shanmugam by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Wood is ordered for confiscation, the other materials found in the consignment must be ordered for redemption. But, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the export consignment without extending an opportunity for redemption. 7. The learned Departmental Representative argued that the request for cross-examination has indeed been considered by the adjudicating authority and the same was rejected through the Order dated 09.07.2007. Since the above order has not been challenged by the appellant, they cannot take the plea that the request for examination has not been contested. He also argued that no such request is available on record for redemption of goods other than the prohibited goods. Finally, she prayed that the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fraud. Consequently, we are of the view that the penalties imposed on S/Shri R. Ramesh and K. Shanmugam are not justified and hence are set aside. 10. We now consider the penalties imposed on Shri C. Srijith, Branch Manager of ILFF. In the impugned order, the rule attributed to him is that of a middle-man, who has liaised with the partners of the exporting firm, and also approached the CHA firm with the export documents for filing the shipping bill. The reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for imposing penalty on him is that he was actively engaged in handling of export cargo despite not being a licence holder of CHA. Since, it was Shri C. Srijjth, who sealed the container with a dummy OTL and escorted the contained to the CFS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m in the capacity of being a Partner of RCO. Shri A.M. Jamaludheen in his statement has also admitted to be Partner in the export business. In view of the fact that the contraband goods having been found in the consignment entry for export and the fact that S/Shri D. Srinivasa Rao and A.M. Jamaludheen both Partners of the exporter, we are of the view that the penalties imposed on them are fully justified. 13. The only arguments advance on behalf of the two persons is that they had requested for cross-examination of the forest officials, who had certified the goods to be Red Sanders. But they alleged that the adjudicating authority, without deciding their request for cross-examination had adjudicated the show-cause notice. From the record....