2002 (9) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by courier agencies at the International Airport.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on courier agencies and their staff.
3. Appeal filed by Patel on Board Courier Service and Mukesh Patel.
4. Similar penalties imposed on other carriers and their appeals.
5. Tribunal's previous orders in similar cases.
6. Evidence against Patel on Board Courier (P.O.B.C.).
7. Imposition of penalty on Patel on Board Courier.
8. Involvement of Mukesh Patel in the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interception of employees of courier agencies at Mumbai Airport carrying dutiable goods, leading to the seizure of items like automobile parts, computer parts, wristwatches, and cordless telephones. Investigations ensued, resulting in a Show Cause Notice seeking confiscation of the seized goods and penalties on those involved in clandestine clearance.

2. Following a hearing, the Commissioner of Customs at Sahar Airport ordered the absolute confiscation of goods and imposed penalties on four courier agencies and their staff. Appeals were filed by Patel on Board Courier Service and Mukesh Patel, challenging the decision.

3. The Tribunal reviewed previous orders in similar cases involving other carriers and their appeals challenging penalties. In those cases, it was established that while employees were involved in clandestine activities, the companies themselves were not found to be engaged in or conniving with such activities, leading to the allowance of appeals by courier agencies.

4. Regarding Patel on Board Courier (P.O.B.C.), the evidence presented did not incriminate the company, and the Commissioner's findings lacked substantial evidence. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to highlight the Commissioner's flawed observations, ultimately leading to the allowance of P.O.B.C.'s appeal with consequential relief.

5. Mukesh Patel, a dealer in automobile parts, was not directly connected to the seized goods in the present case. Despite past incidents involving him, the Commissioner's order penalizing him lacked sufficient evidence to prove his involvement. As per the law, penalties can only be imposed when a person's actions render goods liable to confiscation, which was not the case with Mukesh Patel. Therefore, his appeal was also allowed with consequential benefits.