2019 (2) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether it is legal and proper for the Appellate Tribunal to confirm substantial penalty after it renders a finding that the appellants were not aware of the export restrictions and further they have not chosen to redeem the goods of value of Rs. 51,60,400/-? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of a nominal penalty not justifiable for the technical violation of wrong declaration of the products sought to be exported which will meet the ends of justice?" 3. Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The short issue which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Trade Policy. Consequently, the authorities detained all the six containers under Mahazar dated 29.07.2009 for further investigation. The Test Report dated 03.08.2009 states that the six samples tested is in the form of Red coloured coarse powder having characteristics of "Potassium Chloride" and is other than Sodium Chloride. The percentage content of Potassium Chloride was found to be 95%. Pursuant to such report, six containers, which were detained were seized under a Mahazar dated 03.08.2009. Subsequently, the business premises of the appellant and other places were searched and documents were recovered. Further, statement was recorded from the Managing Director of the appellant under Section 108 of the Act, wherein, he had stated that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had challenged the order dated 16.03.2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA as well as the individual penalty imposed on the Managing Director. The penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced to Rs. 7,00,000/- from Rs. 10,00,000/-. The challenge in this appeal is only on this aspect. The appellant's contention is that the Tribunal having been satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for reduction of penalty ought to have exercised discretion and reduced the penalty to a bare minimum. 10. Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would fairly state that the appellant is not emphasising the case that no penalty should be imposed, but th....