TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that the goods is liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) and 113(d) of the Customs Act 1962 and imposed the penalties under Section 114 of the customs Act 1962 and under Section 114AAof the Customs Act 1962 read with Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992, Rule 11 and 14(2) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules 1993 read with provisions of Section 50 of the Customs Act 1962. Being aggrieved with the impugned order Appellants filed Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner, Customs House, Mundra and dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant have filed these Appeals before CESTAT. 3. Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel appeared for the Appellant M/s Bansal Fines Foods Pvt. Ltd. and co-appellant Shri Munish Bansal and Shri Paritosh Gupta learned counsel appeared for Shri V.Arjoon. Shri Ajay Singh submits that Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that entire case against the appellant is based on statement of certain individual and letters from shipping line stating that container were discharged at Jebel AliPort in UAE c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been delivered to the Iranian Buyer but have been discharged in the domestic market of Dubai. 3.3 He further submits that entire proceeding premised on the fact that though sold to Iranian buyers but diverted to Dubai. The authorities have however, failed to appreciate that there was no condition in the Indo-Iranian Trade that the goods must be delivered only in Iran or that it should be consumed only in Iran. 3.4 He also submits that Ld. Appellant authority failed to appreciate that even the Phytosanitary Certificate declaring destination as Iran, was furnished before Customs Authority in India. There is no allegation or any evidence that the said certificate was amended at any stage in order to get the goods cleared in a country other than Iran. In the impugned matter both the authority failed to verify the facts and documents submitted before them. Mere change of port of discharge cannot be the factor to conclude otherwise especially when incontrovertible evidence in the form of export documents from Dubai Customs has been adduced to the effect that goods were not cleared in UAE but shipped further to Iran. Ld. Adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that merely b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shraf Armar - 2019-TIOL-1954-CESTAT-MUM 4. Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of OIA and placed reliance on the following decisions. • Dharmpal Satyapal [2015 (320)ELT 3 (SC)] • Patel Engineering Ltd. [2014(307)ELT 862 ( Bom) ] • N S Mahesh [2016 (331) ELT 402 (Ker)] • Chennai Marine Trading [2014(304)ELT 354(Mad.)] • A G Incorporation [2013(287)ELT 357(Tri)] • Pundole Shahrukh [2014(313)ELT 573 (Tri.)] • GTC Industries Ltd. [2011(264)ELT 433 (Tri.)] • Harminder Singh Chaddha [2018(362)ELT 95] • Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works [2007(209)ELT 410(Tri.) • Om Prakash Bhattia [2003(155) ELT 423 (SC) • Rajeev Verma [2007(218)ELT 200 Del] • Shri Rama Thenna Thayalan [2021-TIOL-2269-HC-MAD-CUS] • Shri Chinta Haran Oja CHA [2020-TIOL-611-CESTAT-DEL] 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the case of the department is that M/s Bansal Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. had filed the Shipping Bills/Export documents for export of goods i.e ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Request for cross-examination has been denied and the witnesses have not been examined despite specific reliance by the appellant on Section138B. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veetrag Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs - 2015 (330) E.L.T. 74 (Mad.) has observed as under : "8. While considering the value of cross-examination, the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case (cited supra) held thus : "Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice : 23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice." A mere reading of the above said proposition clearly shows that the ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Govt. of India after proper inspection of each consignment. In the present case we have gone through the Phytosanitary Certificates produced by the Appellant. Each of these Phytosanitary Certificate carries e-Registration No., the name of the exporter in India and consignee in Iran, number of bags and its quantity etc. There is no allegation or any evidence that the said certificates were amended at any stage in order to get the goods cleared in a country other than Iran. 5.4 Without prejudice, we further find that Appellant lost the ownership of the goods as soon as 'let export order' was issued by the Customs authorities. After the said let export order it was the responsibility of the Shipping Lines to ship the goods to the foreign buyer and the exporter having no control over the goods. Hence, Appellant cannot be held responsible if the importer situated at Iran had given instruction to change the port from Bandar Abbas port to Jabel Ali port as after the 'let export order' was issued by the Customs authorities it was the importer at Iran who became the owner of the goods. In support of this finding we rely upon the CBEC circular No. 999....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign exchange, it is the erstwhile FERA authorities or FEMA authorities who are competent to initiate the proceedings against the party. In support of this finding we rely upon the law laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Chinku Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1999 (112) ELT 400 (Trib). This judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2005 (184) ELT A36. This judgment has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Hillari Computer Exports (P) Ltd vs. Commr. of Cus., Visaskhapatnam reported in 2006 (199) ELT 636 and in the case of Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex (Adj), Bangalore reported in 2009 (233) ELT 260 (Tri.-Bang). Though the first two judgments relate to period when FERA was in operation whereas the third judgment in the case of Bank of Nova Scotia relates to period when FEMA came into operation wherein it has been held that if at all there is violation of FEMA and the related regulations suitable action lies with the enforcement authorities and Reserve Bank of India. It has further been held that with regard to the violations of Exim policy, adjudication can be done only by authorities notified under secti....