Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pandiri. Praveen Kumar vs Principle Commissioner Of Customs, on 18 December, 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No.225 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) Heard Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.1 herein, passed an order by virtue of proceedings vide F.No.S23/13/2015-AP, dated 15.11.2016, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') and the said order reads as under:
"(i) I confiscate absolutely of 801 nos of Red Sanders Wood logs weighing 26.230 MTS totally valued at Rs.6,55,75,000/- ( Rupees Six Crore Fifty Five Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) in the local market which were exported/attempted to be exported illegally under Section 113(d), 113(g), 113(h) and 113(k) read with Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 11 read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 for being prohibited goods.
(ii) I confiscate absolutely the cash of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees twenty four Lakhs) seized under panchanama dated 17.06.2014 from the possession of Sri K.Pydi Raju at his residence under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 for being the sale proceeds of red sanders smuggled earlier and put to use for financing the smuggling of red sanders.
(iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs only) on Shri Pandiri Praveen Kumar under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.2
(iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) on Shri Noamaan Khan under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(v) I impose a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) on Shri Mohammed Haroon under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(vi) I impose a penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) on Shri K.Pydi Raju under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(vii) I impose a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on Shri Kosuri Somasekhar under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(viii) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Sunil Chandrakant Kalgutkar under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(ix) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri James David Balraj under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(x) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Deepak Naidu alias Nancy under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xi) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Mohammad Altaf under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions 3 done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xii) I impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on Shri Murru Sudheer Krishna under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xiii) I impose a penalty of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) on Shri Dadi Bala Bhaskar under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xiv) I impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on Shri Akki Reddy Babu Rao under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xv) I impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on Shri Molli Venkata Ramana under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by him which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xvi) I impose a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on M/s. Dattar Shipping and Logistics Pvt., Ltd., under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by them which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation.
(xvii) I impose a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on M/s. ICS Cargo under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the omissions and commissions done by them which have rendered the subject goods liable for confiscation."
3. Questioning the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, first respondent herein, the appellant herein filed a statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 4 Regional Office at Hyderabad, under Section 129 of the Act. The Tribunal, by way of the order under challenge dated 09.10.2018, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, confirming the order passed by the primary authority under Section 114(i) of the Act.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the primary authority, as confirmed in the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not inconsonance with the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned counsel, in elaboration, that in the absence of any proof of involvement of the appellant herein, the primary authority grossly erred in passing the order against the appellant. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel that the original authority did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant herein in proper perspective.
5. Per contra, it is maintained by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that there is absolutely no illegality, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned orders, and in the absence of the same, the questioned orders are not amenable for any correction under Section 130 of the Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since the appellant herein failed to demonstrate the existence of any substantial question of law in the case on hand, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. The information available before this Court reveals that on the allegation of smuggling of red sander wood logs, proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein and certain others. The primary authority i.e., first respondent herein, by way of the order 5 dated 15.11.2016 imposed penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- on the appellant herein under Section 114(i) of the Act on the ground that the omissions and commissions done by him attract the said provision of law. As against the said order passed by the primary authority, the appellant herein filed the statutory appeal under Section 129 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the appeal of the appellant herein also along with the appeals filed by the other individuals and eventually arrived at the conclusion against the appellant herein and about his involvement in the alleged offence. A perusal of the orders passed by the primary and appellate authorities to the extent of the findings recorded against the appellant herein clearly demonstrate that the authorities took into consideration the statements recorded and the effect of provisions of the enactment. The appellate Tribunal also categorically recorded findings about the role played by the appellant herein in the alleged offence at paragraph No.7 of the impugned order.
7. In this context, it may be appropriate to reproduce Paragraph No.7 of the order passed by the Tribunal, which reads as under:
"7. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri Praveen Kumar & M/s. Dattar Shipping & Logistics, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly brought in paragraph No.30 and paragraph No.37, the roles played by Dattar Shipping and individual Shri Praveen Kumar. It is seen from the said findings that Shri Praveen Kumar was advising many people how to do the illegal export of red sander wood logs. Shri K.Somasekhar and Shri Pydi Raju have clearly stated that they were engaged in the export of red sanders under the advice of Shri Praveen Kumar. The findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph No.30.2 of his Order-in-Original and also 6 paragraph No.30.3 clearly indicate the complicity of Shri Praveen Kumar in master minding the illegal export of red sander wood logs. Since, he is the director of M/s Dattar Shipping and Logistics, were used for export of red sander wood, I find that the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on both these appellants under the Section 114(i) is correct and does not require any interference. Appeals of Shri Praveen Kumar and Dattar Shipping and Logistics Limited stands rejected."
8. In view of the above categorical findings recorded by the primary authority and the appellate Tribunal and having regard to language employed in Section 108 of the Customs Act, and considering the statements recorded, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by appellate Tribunal confirming the order passed by the primary authority. This Court does not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, in the case on hand.
9. Accordingly, the Central Excise Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ___________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI Date: 18.12.2019 ivd