2018 (9) TMI 1806 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty - allegations of transporting smuggled electronic items - Held that - The statement on behalf of the appellants (by Mr. Nagendra Mishra and Mr. Shriniwas Bansal) conceded that these goods were transported and they have knowledge of it. Furthermore, these individuals also admitted that they have booked various consignments in the name of various fictitious firms and they used to send empty containers at some place either at the instructions of one or the other individual on phone where the goods were loaded and transported - the Court is of opinion that concurrent findings of the lower authority cannot be interfered - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty for transporting smuggled electronic items; Allegations against transporters; Lack of material to implicate transporters; Knowledge of transporters about smuggled goods; Fictitious consignments transported by appellants.

In this case, the appellant was aggrieved by the penalty imposed following a show cause notice from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding the transportation of smuggled electronic items. The Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appellant's appeals. The appellant's counsel argued that the CESTAT erred in failing to recognize that there was no evidence directly linking the appellants, who were transporters, to the smuggled goods. It was contended that the appellants were simply transporting goods booked by consignors whose identities turned out to be fake. The counsel also highlighted the lack of proof showing that the 43 consignments containing smuggled goods were known to the appellant/transporter.

The CESTAT, in its order, observed that all the transported consignments were fictitious and contained electronic goods like televisions. Statements made by individuals representing the appellants, Mr. Nagendra Mishra and Mr. Shriniwas Bansal, acknowledged their involvement in transporting these goods and their knowledge of the same. These individuals further admitted to booking consignments under fictitious firm names and sending empty containers to be loaded with goods at specified locations as instructed by others over the phone.

Considering these facts, the Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were justified, and no legal question arose for interference. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, including any pending applications.