2018 (10) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty on them under provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal No. C/478/2009 filed by the Expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., against the imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since, both the appeals are directed against the same Order-in-Original and contesting the same issue, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Learned Counsel Shri T. Jagapathi Rao appeared for the appellant M/s Exim Services, appellant M/s Expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., is unrepresented. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The issue that needs to be decided in these cases is whether the appellants herein are liable for the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority or otherwise. 6. Briefly stated facts are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Customs Act, 1962 are attracted. 7. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and submits that there is no definitive role attributed to M/s Exim Services. They filed free shipping bill as per procedure and subsequently were directed to file drawback shipping bill by exporters, they did so, and cancelled the free shipping bill. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Freightwings & Travels Ltd., [2017 (358) ELT 669] wherein, penalty imposed under Section 114 were set aside for misdeclaration of value of confiscated goods by an exporter. 8. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 9. We have considered the submissions m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y if it is established that, in relation to the offending goods, some act is committed or is omitted to be done that leads to confiscation. Such act or omission has not been brought on record. Mere filing of bills or presentation of goods that were found to be liable to confiscation does not constitute act or omission referred to in Section 114 because these are procedural requirements. None of the statements establish that the appellants were aware or participated in the procurement, packing or transportation of the goods." 11. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the penalty imposed on M/s Exim Services is unwarranted and liable to be set aside and we do so. 12. As regards penalty imposed on M/s Expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., we find tha....