TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deceased M/s Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that deceased Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne a national of the Netherlands purchased 575 numbers of old & used Burma teak wood of an old building from one M/s Manav Impex of Chennai after the same was refurbished, transported from Chennai to Mumbai as advised by CHA M/s Daroowala Bros & Company, from where it was to be exported. He had export licence to own and export private forest products for the period. CHA filed manual shipping bill bearing no. 2000000157 dated 29th July, 2008 on behalf of the appellant for export of 533 numbers of blocks having total FOB value Rs. 21,02,287/- as personal baggage export to the Netherlands but in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., confiscated under Section 113(d) & (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should be imposed on them under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962? The appellant filed a detailed reply to the aforementioned show-cause notice, the matter was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs (General) confirming the confiscation of goods with option for payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- given to the deceased appellant for taking the goods back to town along with penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the deceased appellant, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on CHA M/s Daroowalla Bros. & Company and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on its partner Shri Parvez Jehangir Irani under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962. 4. Along with deceased appellant, CHA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such legal position, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on deceased Bernard Maurice Gerard Kuhne is abated on his death that occoured on 21.10.2009. Penalty on other appellant have been set aside vide earlier order of this Tribunal and therefore the issue of confiscation of goods by the respondent department is required to be scrutinised in this appeal to determine its legally. 7. Both show-cause notice and Order-in-Original indicate that Section 3 & 11 of the "Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992" and Schedule 2 of the EXIM policy prescribed for prohibition of export of wood. The Commissioner of Customs also indicated in his finding that noticee (appellant here) had mis-declared the nature and weight of the goods in shi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conclusion that RITC number was mis-quoted as 44072910 instead of 44011000 but going by the relevant provisions of Section 3 & 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 as well as Chapter 44 under Schedule-II of EXIM Policy, it can very well be said that CHA had intended the same to be Burmese imported teak wood made exclusively out of imported old and used wood and quoted it under RITC No. 44072910 for which export policy permits free export for imported logs/timber of all species other than CITES. The said statement is not submitted by either of the parties for scrutiny but as found from the record is that CHA had mistakenly declared it as Indian wood instead of imported Burmese teak wood. Further, even if the content....