Sunday, 19 March 2017 12:00

CESTAT Kolkata : Md. Abdul Majed Sarder Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),WB, Kolkata : 15th March, 2017 Featured

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)


Appeal No. C/212/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.10/CUS/CC(P)/WB/2009 dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Kolkata)

Md. Abdul Majed Sarder
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)


Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),WB, Kolkata
Respondent (s)

Shri P.R.Chowdhary, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)

Honble Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 16.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement:15.03.2017

ORDER NO.FO/75238/2017

Per Shri P.K.Choudhary

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs.21,12,000/- under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) W.B., Kolkata ordered for complete confiscation of 5.280 MT of Red Sanders Wood valued at Rs.21,12,000/- under Section 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the title of the good shall be vested with the Central Government. It has also imposed penalty on another noticee.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.07.2007, the D.R.I officers rushed to Amudia BSF Camp near Indo-Bangladesh Border at Swarupnagar, North 24 Parganas at about 16.15 hrs. and noticed a heap of Red Coloured logs covered by a tarpaulin sheet in the said camp. It was informed by the BSF Officers that they had recovered the said logs appearing to be Red Sanders within 1-1 = Kms. Of the Indo-Bangladesh border. It is stated by the said officers that the said logs were recovered from the land in front of the house of the appellant. In the Adjudication order, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant herein denied the ownership of the seized goods recovered from his own vacant land just in front of his dwelling unit. It is observed that the appellant avoided one vital question that why he did not inform the Police seeing the said portion of the seized goods in his own vacant land. I find that there is no statement against the appellant of involvement in the alleged smuggling of the goods. The penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or commits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable, in the case of goods, to a penalty not exceeding three times of the value of the goods as determined. In the present case, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant had not informed the police, which would not come within the purview of attempt to export goods improperly by the appellant. The word attempt would indicate an intent combined with an act to export goods improperly. So, the imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) on the appellant is not justified.

3. In view of the above discussions, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

( Pronounced in the Open Court on 15.03.2017)

Member (Judicial)


Additional Info

  • Date Range: Wednesday, 15 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Customs duty
  • Petitioner/Appellant: Md. Abdul Majed Sarder Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),WB, Kolkata
  • Respondent: Md. Abdul Majed Sarder Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),WB, Kolkata
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal No. C/212/2009
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Kolkata
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court
Read 368 times