TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad the Commissioner to the extent it imposes penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the appellant under section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Customs Act as also a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 114AA of the Customs Act. 2. M/s Colour Cottex Pvt Ltd. Colour Cottex is engaged in the manufacture and export of Ready Made Garments. It entered into contracts for supplying Ready Made Garments the Goods with Lagoon Trading LLC, Lagcy Trading LLC, and Royal Readymade Garments based in U.A.E. To encourage exports to remote markets, the Government introduced the Focus Market Scheme FMS, designed to offset higher freight costs borne by buyers. Under the FMS, exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irates. The Freight Forwarders involved were M/s Concorde Shipping & Logistics India and M/s Safewater Lines India Private Limited Safewater Lines. Imran Mirza, proprietor of M/s Concorde Shipping in his statement dated 11.08.2017 made under section 108 of the Customs Act admitted that Rajesh Dhandha, Director of Colour Cottex had instructed him to divert the container to Jebel Ali and, accordingly, he had instructed Safewater Lines, an intermediate freight forwarding agency, to divert the container to Jebel Ali. The Deputy Manager (Finance) of Safewater Lines in his statement dated 17.04.2017 recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act stated that Safewater Lines had further directed the appellant to change the destination of the said co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, a country which was not notified under the Focus Market Scheme. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether penalty under section 114(iii) and section 114AA could have been imposed upon the appellant. 7. Before examining this issue, it would be pertinent to state that the Commissioner has found as a fact that the goods exported through the 211 shipping bills were liable for confiscation under section 113(d), (g) and (i) of the Customs Act. This finding has been recorded for the reason that the goods were diverted to Jebel Ali, though they were to be delivered at Panama and this was done wilfully by Colour Cottex with the help of Imran Mirza, Safewater Lines and the appellant. It needs to be noted that the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the container tracking report was submitted by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. According to the appellant, the aforesaid documents show that the charges for carrying the shipment further from Colon Free Zone, Panama to Jebel Ali was also negotiated and, accordingly, invoices were issued by the appellant. 9. The Commissioner has relied upon a reply dated 19.01.2019 said to have been submitted by the appellant wherein it was stated that an undertaking had been given by the appellant that the consignment were to be transported to Jabel Ali by the appellant and thereafter the same was to be carried to the final destination as per own arrangement of the consignee/buyer. 10. The appellant has contended that such a reply da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under the Customs Act, which ever is greater. The Commissioner confiscated the goods under section 113 of the Customs Act. As noticed above, the confiscation of goods has been set aside by order of date in Customs Appeal No. 55760 of 2023 filed by Color Cottex. Consequently, penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act cannot be levied upon the appellant. 14. Section 114AA provides that if a person, knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses or causes to be made, any material particular, in the transaction....