2025 (9) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') in Customs Appeal No. 50016/2020 titled 'Commissioner of Customs, ACC Export Commissionerate v. Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Vin Global Logistics'. Vide the impugned judgment, the CESTAT rejected the prayer of the Appellant for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Respondent. 3. This Court has already considered an appeal being CUSAA 108/2025 titled 'Ravindra Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)' filed by Mr. Ravindra Kumar against the very same impugned judgment. This Court had rejected the said Appeal, vide judgment dated 12th August 2025. 4. The present case arises out of a specific intelligence regarding illegal export of 'Red Sanders' which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive portion of the Order-in-Original reads as under: "13. In the light of above discussion and finding, I pass the following order; i. I order for confiscation of the seized consignment of 1103.1 Kgs of Red Sanders under Section 113(d) and Section 113(h) (1) of the Customs Act, 1962; ii. I reject the declared value of the consignment (as mentioned in Para-32 of the SCN) under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determine the assessable value of Red Sanders as Rs. 2,00,00,306/- in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007; iii. I impose Penalty of Rs. 50,00000 (Rs Fifty Lakhs) on Shri Prashant Jha u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 of 2020 filed by Revenue seeking imposition of penalty on Shri Mayank Gupta under section 114AA of the Act is dismissed. (iii) Appeal No.: C/52762 of 2019 filed by Shri Ravindra Kumar is dismissed. (iv) Appeal No. : C/50016 of 2020 filed by Revenue seeking imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Act on Shri Ravindra Kumar is dismissed. (v) Appeal No.: C/50018 of 2020 filed by the Revenue seeking imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Act on Shri Sarvesh Kumar is allowed and the impugned order is modified imposing penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- on Shri Sarvesh Kumar under section 114AA of the Act. (vi) Appeal No.: C/50015 of 2020 filed by Revenue seeking imposition of penalty under section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vindra Kumar had obtained any monetary benefit from the admitted fraud. 34. For these reasons, learned counsel argued that Shri Ravindra Kumar had not done anything which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 113 of the Act or abetted doing or omission of such an act. He was unaware of mis-declaration at any point of time. For these reasons, the penalty imposed on him under section 114 of the Act needs to be set aside. 35. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for Revenue submits that there is no error by Commissioner imposing penalty under section 114 of the Act on Shri Ravindra Kumar. However, Commissioner had erred in not also imposing penalty under section 114AA of the Act. 36....