TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing extent: 1) Absolute confiscation under Section 113 (d) of 2961 kilograms of shark fins stored at Mumbai and of 5061.88 kilograms of shark fins stored at Mumbai and of 5061.88 kilograms of shark fins stored at Verawal, Gujarat. 2) Redetermination of value of 2961 kilograms of shark fins as 20,54,93,400/- (Twenty crores, fifty-four lakhs, ninety-three thousand and four hundred rupees only) and of 5061.88 kilograms of shark fins as 35,12,94,472/- (Thirty-five crores, twelve lakhs, ninety-four thousand and four hundred and seventy-two rupees only). 3) Imposition of penalty of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (Seven crores rupees only) under 114 (i) on the Appellant through its proprietor, Mr. Sarafath Ali. B. Such other reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Appellant. C. Grant consequential reliefs." 1.2 Revenue has also filed the miscellaneous application, numbered as C/Misc.85550/2025, praying for change in the cause title in respect of the respondent's particulars in the appeal filed by the appellant. Prayer made by Revenue is considered and accordingly Registry is directed to incorporate the following changed name and addres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment had mainly proceeded against the appellant for confirmation of the adjudged demands, based on the statements recorded from the proprietor and the employees of the appellant under summons that the impugned goods were stored for the purpose of export. He submitted that immediately upon recording of the said statement, the proprietor as well as the other employees (co-noticees) had retracted the said statements before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, stating inter alia, that those were recorded by the officers of D.R.I. by using threat and coercion; that the same was not true and voluntarily given by them; that the D.R.I. officers had not provided any chance to the signatories to read the computerized statement and that the said statements were signed against their will and by using the force etc. Thus, learned Advocate submitted that the retracted statements cannot be accepted or considered as guilt of admission, unless there are other corroborative evidences that the disputed goods in question were meant for export only. He further submitted that storage of shark fins or trading of the same in the domestic market is not prohibited in law. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said goods, cannot be sustained. Learned Advocate further submitted that the impugned order has confirmed the charges leveled in the SCN solely based on the past exports and the retracted statement made by the proprietor of the appellant. He has stated that no evidences were available of record to establish that the appellant had committed any act to put the intention into action for illegally exporting the shark fins. To support such stand that the onus entirely lies with the Revenue to prove intention to export of goods, which is absent in the present case, learned Advocate has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yakub And Others - 1983 (13) E.L.T.1637 (S.C.), Malkiat Singh And Another Vs. State of Punjab - (1969) 1 Supreme Court Cases 157, and the orders of this Tribunal, passed in the cases of M/s. Gudiseva Vasuki Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Hyderabad-III - 2017 (9) TMI 760 - CESTAT HYDERABAD, Tele Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai -2016 (1) TMI 97- (Tri. - Mumbai) and V. Thirubalagan Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2023 SCC OnLine CESTAT 646. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the impugned order, we find that the crux of the case involved therein was factually different, than those involved in the present case. In the said decided cases, seizure of red sanders/paddy & rice, and their ultimate connection for movement to the port area/ customs border area, for the purpose of export was established; whereas, contrary is the situation in the present case, inasmuch as the seized goods i.e., shark fins were found stored at the designated storage place, belonging to the appellants, having no connectivity with the load port, if any, for alleged exportation of the same to outside India. In other words, in order to constitute an act of attempt to export, the ingredients required to be fulfilled are intention, preparation and preliminary act to export. We find that the department had not brought on any iota of evidence to prove their case that the appellant had intended to export the shark fins. 6.3 We find that the issue of 'attempting to export' has been adequately addressed to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Malkiat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab - (1969) 1 Supreme Court Cases 157. The issue involved in the said case was that one Shri Malki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he be convicted of this offence if he approaches the stack with the matches in his pocket, but, if he bends down near the stack and lights a match which extinguishes on perceiving that he is being watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to burn it. Sir James Stephen, in his Digest of Criminal Law, Article 50, defines an attempt as follows: "an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted. The point at which such series of acts begins cannot be defined, but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case." 7. The test for determining whether the act of appellants constituted an attempt or preparation is whether the overt act already done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. In the present case it is quite possible that the appellants may have been warned that they have no license to carry the paddy and they may have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha barrier and the Delhi Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey.....". 6....