TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having total FOB value of Rs.14,68,408/- to Iraq. The goods contained in the box no.13 & 17 of the impugned Shipping Bill was found to have contained item "MIGRAN (Caffeine (100mg) + Ergotamine Titrate (Img) + Paracetamol (250mg) + Prochlorperazine (2.5mg) (Nos.5000) of value Rs.16,221/-. 2. ERGOTAMINE' is notified as 'controlled substance' covered under Schedule-B to Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulations of Controlled Subscribers) Order dated 26.03.2013 [NDPS Order] As per clause 10 of the said Order, no person shall export any controlled substance in Schedule-B except in accordance with the condition of 'No Objection Certificate [NOC]' issued by the Narcotics Commissioner. The exporter failed to provide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I/Export/NCH/900/2025-26 dated 11.08.2025] 5. The issue in the present appeal is limited to the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 117 of the Act. The first submission of Shri Salil Arora, the learned Counsel for the appellant is, if CBLR is treated as provisions of the Act then for invoking section 117 there should be no express penalty elsewhere for such contravention or failure. Since the allegation in the present case is regarding violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, the provisions thereof under Regulation 18 provides for imposition of penalty for violation of Regulation 10(d) and therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant by virtue of Section 117. The other limb of his argument is that if Regulations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. The Customs Broker is expected to act as a compliance facilitator ensuring that the exporter adheres to all statutory requirements. In the present case, the Customs Broker failed to verify whether export authorization from the Narcotics Commissioner had been obtained before filing the Shipping Bill. Had the Customs Broker exercised due diligence and advised the exporter appropriately, the attempted export of restricted goods could have been prevented. Further, the presence of undeclared Ledifos medicine in the consignment also demonstrates lack of diligence on the part of the exporter as well as the Customs Broker. The Customs Broker facilitated filing of export documents despite the presence of undeclared goods which were subsequentl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions on both sides and perused the records of the case, I find that on merits, the issue stands covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Videojet Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. In the said case, the appellant imported ink and ink related consumables containing various ingredients, including Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) ranging from 35% to 99% without obtaining NOC from the Narcotic Commissioner. The Bench examined that MEK is covered at Serial No.10 of Schedule-C and it does not include goods or materials which contain MEK or preparations of MEK or salts of MEK. It was, therefore, observed that wherever the intention was to cover not only the controlled substance but also its salts, the schedule indicates so. The conclus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the product in question is not covered under the category of 'Ergotamine and its salts' and at the most can be termed as preparation of Ergotamine, which is beyond the scope of Schedule-B. In such cases, the Division Bench in Videojet Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. has already observed that NOC from Narcotics Commissioner is not required to import the goods and therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant for holding the goods liable for confiscation and alleging mis-declaration leading to violation of the provisions of CBLR. 10. With regard to the excess quantity of medicine i.e. Ledifos (50 bottles containing each 28 tablets), I find that the exporter had submitted that they had purchased the said medicine further from M/s. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he event there is no other provision for imposing penalty. The provisions of CBLR are self-contained and specifically provides for imposition of penalty. Regulation 18 deals with imposition of penalty for violation of the provisions of the Regulations, is set out below: - "18. Penalty.- (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may impose penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees on a Customs Broker or F card holder who contravenes any provisions of these regulations or who fails to comply with any provision of these regulations. (2) The Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner of Customs may impose penalty not exceeding ten thousand rupees on a G card holder who contravenes any provision....