9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 436 - AT - CustomsPenalty on parcel service operator - Show Cause Notice issued for confiscation of the seized goods collectively valued at Rs. 72,49,445/-, imposition of penalty. By the impugned order goods valued at Rs. 8,55,000/- were ordered to be released. Impugned consignment not mentioning complete consignee address. Held that- mere omission on part of booking clerk to mention complete address of consignee in some GRs could not mean that directors/employees of parcel service operator had knowledge about smuggled nature of contents of parcel. No positive evidence and nothing in the statement of directors/employee which could be treated as admission of guilt about smuggled nature of goods booked by them. Penalty on director/employee set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of seized goods. 2. Imposition of penalties on the consignees. 3. Imposition of penalties on the Appellant company and its employees. 4. Imposition of penalties on various freight forwarders. Detailed Analysis: Confiscation of Seized Goods: The seized goods, valued at Rs. 72,49,445/-, included items such as video cameras, still cameras, batteries, CD players, car stereos, lithium cells, cordless phones, calculators, scotch whiskey, and articles of apparel. The goods were recovered from parcels booked by the Appellant company at Chennai for delivery in Delhi. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi, ordered the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 63,94,045/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as no persons came forward to claim ownership. The remaining goods valued at Rs. 8,55,000/- were ordered to be released. Imposition of Penalties on the Consignees: Penalties of different amounts were imposed on various consignees/freight forwarders. The show cause notice and subsequent order aimed to penalize those involved in the transportation and receipt of the smuggled goods. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellant Company and Its Employees: The Appellant company was penalized Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additional penalties were imposed on the company's Director and employees: Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Tejinder J. Singh, Rs. 20,000/- each on Shri Jai Prakash, Shri Dalip Sabharwal, and Shri J. Panwar, and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri G. Kannan. The Appellant company argued that it operated as a "Commerce Carrier" and booked parcels on a "Said to Contain" basis without opening them. It was contended that the company and its employees had no knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods. The legal counsel for the Appellant cited multiple judgments to assert that a carrier is not required to verify the contents of parcels and cannot be held liable for smuggled goods without evidence of knowledge or reason to believe the goods were smuggled. Imposition of Penalties on Various Freight Forwarders: Penalties were imposed on various freight forwarders who facilitated the booking of the parcels. The Appellant company argued that it was not possible to verify the addresses of consignors and consignees before accepting consignments, especially when goods were booked in bulk by freight forwarders. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal held that there was no positive evidence to prove that the Appellants had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were smuggled. The goods were booked on a "Said to Contain" basis, and the Appellant company, as a common carrier, cannot be expected to verify the contents of each parcel. The Tribunal referred to several judgments supporting this view, including Rajdoot Road Carriers v. C.C. Lucknow and Harbans Singh Narula v. Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from those cited by the Respondent, noting that in the cited cases, there was evidence of connivance or admission of knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods, which was not present in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, were not sustainable due to the lack of evidence proving the Appellants' knowledge or reason to believe the goods were smuggled. Consequently, the impugned order imposing penalties on the Appellants was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. (Pronounced in the Open Court on 7-1-2010)
|
