TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1962. It is understood upon hearing both sides that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order of the first appellate authority. 2. It is the case of the Revenue as could be gathered from the Show Cause Notice and the Order in Original that based on the intelligence that one M/s. R.J. Associates were attempting to avail fraudulent drawback benefits, their export consignments were detained at M/s. St. John ICD. The following Table is reproduced, for convenience which contains the relevant details:- S. No. Shipping Bill No. / Date Description of the goods Qty. (in Ctns. / Pcs) FOB value (In Rs.) Unit Price Drawback involved (In Rs.) 1. 2845903 17.3.2011 100% cotton woven mens shirt 90....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shalom Forwarders, the CHA, who filed all the four shipping bills in question. Consequently, Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2011 was issued to all the concerned persons i.e. exporter and also the appellant alleging contravention of various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 thereby inter alia proposing redetermining / restricting the duty drawback, apart from penalty under sec. 114(iii) and 114AA on the appellant. From the record it appears that some of the notices filed their reply and also participated in the personal hearing granted by the adjudicating authority. The appellant before us has also participated and has also filed his reply dated 23.4.2012, a copy of which is placed on record before us from pages 38 to 40 of the appeal mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that there no evidence that the appellant had acted in deliberate defiance of law or in conscious disregard of their obligations • Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that no incrimination documents were recovered from the office or the residential premises of the appellant • Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that the statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration is immaterial and not an admissible piece of evidence. He has further relied on the following orders:- (a) Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.) (b) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. I. Sahaya Edin Prabhu - 2015 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ully perused the documents placed on record. We have also gone through the decisions / orders relied upon during the course of arguments. We find that the only issue to be decided by us is, "whether the penalty under sec. 114(iii) and 114AA has been correctly levied on the appellant"? 8. We find that there is no dispute as regards fact of duty drawback claimed by the exporter and there is also no dispute that all the four shipping bills were filed by the appellant-CHA, though the appellant has claimed that it was one Suresh, his ex-employee who has used / misused his name by filing the shipping bills. But however, there is no evidence placed in this regard. Further, in his reply to Show Cause Notice, he has taken the following stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have filed the shipping bills. Here in the case on hand, the appellant is found to have blamed his ex-employee, the another person for misusing his signature / office seal but, however, no supporting document is filed and hence, the initial burden stands undischarged. 10. Section 114 empowers levy of penalty for attempt to export goods improperly and it is not specific to the exporter alone. In the case on hand, since the exporter had accepted the Order in Original by not challenging the same, the fact of improper export stands proved and the appellant's role being a CHA who filed shipping bills, thus becomes 'any person' under sec. 114. We also find that the non-lodging of complaint for forgery also establishes the fact that the appel....