CRL TERMINALS PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C. KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals have been filed against OIO No. KDL/COMMR/16/2008, dt. 31.03.2008 under which penalties have been imposed upon the appellants under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Anand Nainavati, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants M/s. Trisuns Chemical Industry Ltd. (TCIL) and its director Shri Liladhar T. Khushlani, argued that 500 MT of Caster Oil exported by TCIL under S/B No. 915, dt. 12.01.2004 was their own manufactured Caster Oil and was not outsourced from any DTA unit. It was strongly argued that no investigation whatsoever has been done to the effect that 500 MT of Caster Oil exported under S/B No. 915, dt. 12.01.2004 was outsourced by TCIL and directly exported from any DTA unit. It was also his case that it is wrongly alleged in the show cause notice and the adjudication order that delivery challan dt. 11.01.2004 was back dated. He made the bench go through para 7 of his reply dt. 26.02.2008 to the show cause notice and argued that there is no irregularity.

(2.) SHRI Rahul Gajera, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s. Crl Terminals Pvt. Ltd. (CTPL) argued that his client has been visited with a penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 when appellant had no knowledge of the fact that goods stored in his bonded tank are liable to confiscation. It was his case that there is no evidence against his client that inspite of the knowledge of confiscable nature of the Caster Oil stored he allowed the storage of Caster Oil in a common bonded tank. It was also argued that all customs procedures were followed from the place of storage to export after filing proper shipping bills by exporters. He relied upon the following case laws:

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the case records. In the present proceedings against TCIL and its director the issue involved is whether penalties are required to be imposed upon them for violating the procedural violations prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act, 1992 read with para 18(c) of the Appendix 14 II of Export and Import Policy, 2002 -07 and Section 34 of the Customs Act, 1962. Ld. A.R. has argued that in view of the order dt. 25.10.2013 15.11.2013 in the case of the M/s. Plasto Fine Industries & others vs. C.C., Kandla, on the same issue penalties are required to be upheld. In this regard it is pertinent to note that in those proceedings there was no dispute on the facts that appellants have directly exported the Caster Oil from other DTA units and not from the units situated in SEZ. In this present case there is no evidence to suggest that 500 MT of Caster Oil exported under S/B No. 915, dt. 12.01.2004 was got exported by TCIL directly from a DTA unit. On the contrary TCIL has strongly argued that 500 MT of Caster Oil exported under S/B No. 915, dt. 21.01.2004 was directly exported from their SEZ. On facts the appeals decided by this bench in order decided dt. 25.10.2013 15.11.2013 with respect to other parties in the same adjudication order, were different than the facts involved in these appeals. No investigation has been made to establish that 500 MT of Caster Oil exported by TCIL under S/B No. 915, dt. 12.01.2004 was infact procured from DTA units and was directly exported from such DTA by violating the provisions of Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act, 1992 and Export and Import Policy, 2002 -07. In the above if any such evidence no export goods cannot be held to be liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and no penalty is imposable upon appellants TCIL and Shri Liladhar T. Khushlani, Director of TCIL.