TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pping bill, after the containers were called back and were opened in presence of independent witnesses under panchnama dated 28.9.2013. The shipping bills were filed by M/s Eurro Exports, Jaipur. The export of red sanders is prohibited from India, at the same time the goods have been mis-declared. The goods under the five shipping bills all dated 23-25 September, 2013 were detained on the reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. Thereafter search was also conducted in the residential cum business premises of Shri Anil Gadodia on 28.9.2013 wood weighing 75.808 Kg. of brown colour and 23.03 Kgs of red colour valued at Rs. 98,838/- was found and detained. Indian currency of Rs. 14.50 lakhs was detained from the premises. Additional cash amount of Rs. 10 lakhs received on the same day from the person named Shri Shiv Kumar, during the course of search was also seized. 3. Further during the course of investigations statement of various persons were recorded by DRI, the details of same are as under: (i) Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Proprietor, Euro Exports-statements dated 28.9.2013 and 29.9.2013 recorded at Jaipur. (ii) Shri Anil Gadodia, Proprietor of M/s Jiwan Inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business of export of red sanders wood to South East Asian countries, mainly to Hong Kong and engaged him for Rs. 35,000/- per month to contact the exporters and explain them their plan. He met Mr. Yodying @ Chan and Mr. Anil Gadodia on various occasions to discuss, plan and execute the illegal export of red sanders for monetary benefits. (ii) He was introduced with other members of smuggling syndicate i.e. Shri Anil Gadodia and Shri Saurabh Chopra by Shri Yodying, to negotiate with Shri Saurabh Chopra for rates for arranging fraudulent export of red sanders and Shri Anil Gadodia for supply of illegal red sanders for fraudulent exports; (iii) On being informed by Shri Saurabh Chopra @ Saurav around Nov-Dec. 2012 (inadvertently typed as Nov. Dec. 2013 in the statement), he has arranged the godown in Todapur, Inderpuri, New Delhi and on being asked to supply red sanders wood for export, Shri Mayur Ranjan contacted Mr. Anil Gadodia for supplying the consignment of 6 MT at Shri Saurabh Chopra's godown. The said quantity of 6 MTs of red sanders was subsequently exported to Hong Kong using some export firm; (iv) He arranged one more consignment of 12 MT of red sanders from Shri An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 and 29.9.2013; statements of Shri Rameshwar Sharma dated 28.9.2013 and 29.9.2013; statement of Shri Saurabh Chopra dated 29.9.2013 and 31.7.2014; statement of Shri Daljeet dated 28.9.2013 and 29.9.2013; Shri Kamal Negi's statement dated 29.9.2013, 19.3.2014 and 19.8.2014 and call details of Shri Anil Gadodia with Shri Vijay and Yodying. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out from the common Order-in-Original No. DLI/CUSTM/PREV/AR/JC/40/2017 dated 31.1.2017 against eight persons including this appellant, Shri Anil Gadodia had filed Appeal No. 52231 of 2019 against order of confiscation and penalty. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50471/2020 dated 28 February, 2020 allowing the appeal held as under: "9. In the present case except statements there is no evidence to show that the goods allegedly kept with intention to attempt the export thereof. No peace of document which show that the red senders stored were meant for export it is undisputed fact that the appellant is a licensed trader of red senders who purchase the red senders in Government auction and trade within the country, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be construed that the goods laying w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a (Proprietor of M/s Euro Exports), Shri Anil Gadodia, Daljeet Singh, Yodying @ Chan, Kamal Negi, Saurabh Chopra and the appellant. 7. Learned Counsel further urges that there is no allegation in the entire show cause notice of any remuneration received by this appellant indicating towards collusion or abetment in the allegation of smuggling. This appellant was simply acting as an interpreter and was being paid accordingly for such services. Neither there is any recovery of any disproportionate assets indicating receipt of remuneration or commission in support of the allegation of Revenue. Thus, the allegation of Revenue of abetment is based on assumption and presumption. Thus, the penalty imposed on this appellant is fit to be set aside. Learned Counsel relies on the following rulings: (i) Naresh Kumar Mittal Vs. CC - 2003 (161) ELT 851 (Tri.-Kolkata); (ii) CCE Vs. Birla Textiles Mills - 2010 (257) ELT 146 (Tri.-Del.); (iii) CCE Vs. Birla Textile Mills - 2015 (325) ELT 651 (Del.) 8. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue had raised a preliminary objection as regards jurisdiction of Single member Bench to hear this appeal as the value of goods confiscated vide common....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant knowingly engaged in negotiation and illegal supply of red sanders for fraudulent exports and actively associated himself in smuggling of red sanders to Shri Lin of China with the help of other members of the syndicate. Thus for the said act of omissions and commissions, is liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in para 35 of the show cause notice wherein the party put to notice are required to finally show cause as to why goods, currency etc. not be confiscated under Section 113 read with Section 121 of the Custom Act for violation of Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Appendix-II of CITES. Thus for the error of not mentioning the proposal to impose penalty again in para 35, does not render imposition of penalty bad, as the show cause notice is required to be read as a whole. Single para cannot be read in isolation for drawing a conclusion. Thus the allegation made in para 34.3 to impose penalty is sufficient. He further rely on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 1978 (2) ELT J 355 (SC) and also Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. ITC Ltd. - 2014 (36) STR 481 (Del.) which ....