JAGANNATH PREMNATH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order in original dated 11 -2 -2004 imposing penalty on the partnership firm and the partner of the firm under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the purpose of imposition of the penalty are that the officers of the Marine and Preventive wing intercepted and detained a container which as per documents contained Turmeric powder for export. On further detailed examination it was found that the goods may not be the same as declared in the documents, a representative sample was drawn and sent to Dy. Chief Chemist, Mumbai for analysis. The analysis report of the Dy. Chief Chemist opined that the product in question was an aromatic powder containing sandalwood powder to the extent of 84.3% by weight. The export of these kind of powders are restricted to licence holders only. Further statements were recorded and show cause notice was issued to many persons including the current appellants. The adjudicating authority in his order -in -original has come to conclusion that the appellants in these appeals have by commission and omission on their part rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act and hence imposed penalty on these appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 1962.

(3.) THE learned Advocate submits that, the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the issue judiciously and has imposed penalty on the appellants on presumptions and assumptions. He submits that the appellants had sold "Agarbatti powder" to the main noticee. This Agarbatti powder was purchased by the appellants from a manufacturer whose invoices were produced as an evidence by them before adjudicating authority. The learned Advocate further submits that the adjudicating authority has not adduced any evidence to implicate the appellants in the act of omission and commission. He submits that the appellants are holders of the licence to export these kind of goods, there is no reason for them to indulge in these kind of activities. He also submits that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statement of the co -accused to impose penalty on the appellants without considering the evidence led by the appellants. He submits that this is contrary to the settled law and relies upon the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Sri Pradeep Sah v. C.C., Patna 2005 TIOL 906 (CESTAT - KOL).