Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
K.Rahuman Sait vs Commissioner Of Customs, Trichy on 22 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/339/99
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.10/99 (Commissioner) dated 29.4.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
K.Rahuman Sait
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri A.Thiyagrajan, Sr.Counsel Shri T.H.Rao, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 22.9.2009 Date of decision : 22.9.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant herein who has been held to have played substantial part in the attempt of illicit export of smuggled sandalwood concealed under Mangalore Roofing Tiles.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that on the date of visit of officers to the godown at Tuticorin, the appellant was present and cartons lying in the premises were opened and found to contain sandalwood as well as Mangalore Roofing Tiles. The appellant has implicated himself in his statement dt. 11.3.98. The retraction of his statement is belated and has, therefore, been rejected by the adjudicating authority. The role of the appellant is clearly brought out by the fact that he was present in the godown at Tuticorin when officers detected concealment of sandalwood along with Mangalore Roofing Tiles and his own statement. He is liable to penalty and the argument that there is no other evidence except his own statement which is therefore not sufficient to hold him liable to penalty, has no merit. We, therefore, uphold the finding that there has been contravention of the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and for his involvement, the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 114 ibid. However, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, including the value of the goods (Rs.96 lakhs approx.), we reduce the penalty to Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only). The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
3