Page 199 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] A.T. MAIDEEN v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, ROHTAK 589

(Merchant Exporter), 118/7 KM Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001 to AL Hasila
Trading, Post Box No. 10063, Dubai, UAE in container No. UACU 8260249-40’
from ICD Babarpur, Panipat contained contraband goods the officers of Direc-
torate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi called back the said
container to ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi from Jabel Ali Port. On examination,
the container was found to contain 537 logs of Red Sanders, which are prohibited
for exports in terms of Foreign Trade Policy and CITES. Thereafter, these logs
were seized and investigations were undertaken. After completion of investiga-
tion, a show cause notice was issued to the concerned persons, proposing the
confiscation of seized goods and for imposition of the penalty on the persons
concerned in illegal exportation of the said goods.
2.2 The show cause notice has been adjudicated by the Commissioner
as per the impugned order referred in para 1, supra. Aggrieved by the impugned
order, imposing penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs present appellant Shri A.T. Maideen is
before us.
3. We have heard Shri T. Cheziyan, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and
Shri M. S. Dhindsa, Authorized Representative for the Revenue.
4. Interestingly in para 55 of the impugned order while recording the
facts, Commissioner has recorded as follows :
“55. Further, investigations in respect of following persons was kept open
and efforts were being made to trace their true identity and locate their
whereabouts :
(i) Shri Satish, mastermind of the whole crimical syndicate;
(ii) Shri Anil Kumar, Supervisor of Shri Satish/Chander Pal Pathak;
(iii) Shri Chander Pal Pathak, owner of the transport company, whose
Supervisor was Shri Anil Kumar;
(iv) Shri A.T. Maideen;
(v) Shri Sanath Kumar.”
From the above, it is quite evident that none of these persons were traced and
investigated by the investigating authority/DRI in the present case. Amongst the
persons who have not been investigated the name of present appellant figures.
However, even without questioning them, or causing investigation, these per-
sons have been made the party to the show cause notice.
5. In para 88, while recording the findings against the appellant, the
Commissioner recorded as follows :-
“88. I further find from the records that during November 2011, DRI,
DZU New Delhi seized about 120 MT of Red Sanders Wood Logs in differ-
ent case from different godown located in and around Delhi and during the
investigations of that case, one person by name Shri A.T. Maideen S/o
Ahamed Thambi, R/o 26, Salt Colony, !st Street Egmore Chennai-80 was
summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and his statement
was recorded on dated 27-11-2011 (RUD-22). In the said statement Shri A.T.
Maideen has also inter alia stated that he had been booked under Custom
Act, two times for illegal export of sandal wood to Singapore through sea
route; that his old business friend Shaul Hammed of Dubai had asked him
to supply Red Sanders and for this purpose he gave him the contact num-
ber of one Mr. Sanath Kumar of Red Hills, Chennai, who was to arrange
clearance of red sanders through various export firms; that as per directions
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  199