SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 1118

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUDHAKAR & R. KARUPPIAH, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, Trichy - Petitioner
Versus
S. Janarthanan - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 93 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided On : 27-02-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: P. Mahadevan, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent:T. Chezhiyan for M.M.K. Alifadeen, Advocates.

The judgment establishes the liability for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act for attempting to export prohibited goods and emphasizes the importance of disclosing information to the customs authorities.

Headnote:

Customs Act - Attempted Smuggling of Sandalwood - Section 113, Section 114 - The judgment discusses the complicity of the respondent in attempting to export sandalwood in the guise of roofing tiles, the liability for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and the erroneous interpretation of the provisions by the Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the attempted export of sandalwood in the guise of roofing tiles, which was prohibited under the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, and the EXIM Policy 1997-02. The respondent was found to have knowledge about the sandalwood being part of the consignment but did not disclose the information to the customs authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The Commissioner found the respondent liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, while the Tribunal held that the essential requirement for imposing the penalty was not fulfilled in the case of the respondent.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act for attempting to export prohibited goods.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence and findings of the Commissioner clearly established the complicity of the respondent in the act, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113. The Tribunal's interpretation of the provisions was deemed erroneous.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the adjudication order, allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue.

Judgment :-

R. Sudhakar, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the assessee was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:

"Is the learned Appellate Tribunal correct in setting aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs when admittedly the respondent has omitted to do an act or at least abetted in such omission under Section 114 of the Customs Act and as such liable to pay penalty under Section 114 of the Act?"

2. The brief facts are as follows:

On 10.3.1998, the Officers of Customs Preventive Division, Tuticorin searched the godown at No.111, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin and found rows of cartons stacked in. Three persons were also seen there. On enquiry, one person identified himself as Nathan of Trichy and stated that he employed other two persons, namely, Selvaraj and Kalkan for packing the goods. The Officers found 476 cartons in the godown, out of which 419 of them containing sandalwood and 57 containing roofing tiles intended for export to Singapore. Shri.R.Kalkan stated that as directed by Nathan, he along with Shri.Selvaraj had come to the godown for packing the tiles and that he did not know anything about sandalwood. Shri.Selvaraj also stated to the same effect. The sandalwood, export which was prohibited under the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act and the EXIM policy 1997-02, was seized by the officers. The roofing tiles, which appeared to have been used for concealing the sandalwood were also seized by them. The Officers also searched Room No.212 of Chitra Lodge, Tuticorin on the same day and recovered documents including visiting card of one Shri. Rahuman Sait, Shri Nathan, who in his statement dated 11.3.1998 admitted that his real name was Rahuman Sait and the above visiting card was his. He further stated that he had come to know one Shri. Dhanapal who had been illicitly dealing in sandalwood and made discussion with him for smuggling of sandalwood to foreign countries and in one such meeting, Dhanapal told him that he was going to despatch sandalwood illicitly through Tuticorin Port and wanted suitable persons for the job. Accordingly, Rahuman Sait @ Nathan suggested the name of one Alexander who was running M/s.Gilbert Overseas Shipping Company at Tuticorin and in December, 2007, he met Dhanapal, who told him that 10 tons of sandalwood were to be smuggled to Singapore and that he contacted Alexander, who arranged for the illicit export. 200 bags of sandalwood were sent to Alexander, which was kept in a godown. Since the said Alexander did not pursue the export in the manner stated, the said Rahuman Sait @ Nathan along with Dhanapal met one Maideen of Mannadi, who was an exporter in Chennai and discussed the matter and it appears that Maideen told that he would arrange illicit export through one Janarthanan @ Janar, who is the respondent herein. Accordingly, he met the said Janarthanan on 02.03.1998 and requested for arranging a godown. The said Janarthanan arranged a godown through his friend Hari.

3. In the course of investigation, it has come to the knowledge of the Department that the respondent Janarthanan was doing export business under the banner “Janar Exports” and his relative Shri.Mohan introduced Maideen of Chennai to him and the Maideen asked Janarthanan to help him in exporting goods such as sandalwood through Tuticorin Port and on 02.03.1998, Maideen contacted him over phone and told him that he got one order for export of Mangalore Tiles to Singapore from one Nathan and requested for arranging a godown. On 06.03.1998 Shri.Maideen sent documents by fax and asked Janarthanan to file the shipping bill as roofing tiles. On 07.03.1998, Janarthanan handed over the documents to Ramesh for filing the Shipping bill, who also filed the same
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top