AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta, a Director employee of the CHA. 3.The brief relevant facts of the case are; four shipping bills for readymade garments were filed on behalf of the exporter Megha by the CHA and were got assessed sometimes in March, 1998. Thereafter, the cargo covered by these four shipping bills was carted from the manufacturer's place to CFS station Sanco in Chennai on 16-4-1998. On 17-4-1998 a letter was filed on behalf of Megha informing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Docks, Madras as follows :- "This is to inform you that we have come to understand from our packing section that by oversight they have packed less number of pcs. in each carton which will not tally with the details as per the packing list. Hence we request you kindly to allow ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be confiscated (no section has been mentioned in the Order-in-Original) and were ordered to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 20,000/- with directions to be allowed to back to town. Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the exporter proprietor Shri Sripad Upadhyay (no section has been mentioned in the operative portion of the order). However, from the findings arrived by the Commissioner in the impugned order, it is observed the liability has been arrived at under Section 114 (iii). A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Shri A. Venkatesan (no section has been mentioned) and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on Phillip D'Costa (again no section has been mentioned). 4.I have heard Shri P.C. Anand, ld. Chartered Accountant for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief. They have complied with the CHA regulations inasmuch as they have ensured the declarations above incorrect consignment have been effectively made as soon as it came to their knowledge. Hence, they are not liable for any action under the Customs Act or CHA Regulation thereunder. There is no case for holding them to be abeters and attempted to export incorrect goods as made out in the show cause notice. 5.Ld. DR Shri S. Kannan for the department reiterates the findings of the Commissioner and submits that the attempt is completed, in the facts of this case, as a shipping bill has been got assessed by making incorrect declarations not conforming to the declaration and incorrect goods brought to the Customs area for the purpose of eventua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Export remains in the realm of 'preparation' and cannot be called as goods entered to and attempted for export, as in this case. Therefore, it can be safely and surely be concluded that for the goods, on 17-4-1998, the date of letter of the exporter extracted supra, there was no intention nor desire to take them out to a place outside India. Therefore, they were not 'Export Goods' on that date, as they did not conform to the definition of 'Export Goods' as given in Section 2(18) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once they are thus not 'Export Goods' as defined under the Customs Act, 1962, liability for confiscation under Section 113(d) which reads as - "113 confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported etc. - The following export g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decided to get the goods repacked in bigger cartons and thereafter the discrepancy in the repacking might have taken place. This explanation has not been held to be correct, yet it enables me to come to conclusion that when the consignment came to the knowledge of the CHAs, they doubted the veracity of contents and attempts were made to get the goods correctly repacked. When the same failed, they sought the consignment to be withdrawn. The Commissioner and the show cause notice proceeded on a presumption that this withdrawal of consignment from export was consequent to the party, especially the CHA coming to learn that the Customs are suspecting the consignment is not based on any facts or material evidence. I find that the case is not made....