2001 (6) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by Commissioner of Customs.
2. Alleged illegal import of goods and possession without legal documents.
3. Challenge to penalty imposition on transporters.

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by Commissioner of Customs

The judgment involves two appeals filed against a common order-in-original dated 31-8-2000 by the Commissioner of Customs, which ordered the confiscation of goods and imposed penalties. The facts leading to the appeals include a search conducted on the office-cum-godown of a company resulting in the recovery of foreign-origin goods. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act due to incomplete and fictitious consignor/consignee details. Despite efforts to contact these parties, no valid import documents were produced. The appellants contested the show cause notice, denying knowledge of the contents of the consignments. The Commissioner, after rejecting their version, ordered confiscation of goods and imposed penalties on both the transporters and consignors/consignees.

Issue 2: Alleged illegal import of goods and possession without legal documents

The appellants, a transport company and its manager, were found in possession of foreign-origin goods without valid import documents. The manager admitted to the recovery of goods but failed to provide legal import/acquisition proof. Although consignor/consignee details were provided, they were deemed incomplete and fictitious. Despite issuing notices, no party claimed the goods with valid import documents. The appellants' plea of not knowing the contents of the consignments received from Mumbai was rejected as implausible. The judgment upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act due to unlawful possession without legal documents.

Issue 3: Challenge to penalty imposition on transporters

The appellants contended that as transporters, they were unaware of the contents of the consignments and should not be penalized. However, the Commissioner found their claim baseless, stating that they must have been aware of the contraband goods they were transporting. The penalty imposed on the transporters was deemed appropriate considering the nature of the goods and their conduct. The judgment upheld the penalties imposed on the transporters, concluding that their appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner of Customs' order for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties due to possession of foreign-origin goods without legal import documents. The transporters' plea of ignorance regarding the contents of the consignments was rejected, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.