9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs Act, 1962. 2. This case pertains to the seizure of certain goods allegedly meant for illegal export to Nepal. These goods were stored in the premises of the appellant situated at Raxaul. 355 bundles of creamware paper worth Rs. 1,23,670/-were found in the godown of the appellant and he could not produce any record. The Officers seized the same on a reasonable belief that these are meant for illegal export to Nepal. The Manager of the appellant company, Shri H.R. Choudhury stated that a person of the consignee of Kathmandu requested him at the time of unloading the goods on 9-7-1982 to keep the goods till a permit from Indian Embassy was obtained. That permission was not got by him till 4-9-1982 on which the seizure was made. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts godown so as to illegally export them to Nepal as and when the trade permits for the same. He also contended that M/s. Rohtas Industries was the party who wanted to export the same to Nepal in favour of Pooja Trade Links of Kathmandu and the consignment had moved on for being exported to Nepal. Therefore, he stated that the appellant is a person concerned with respect to the attempt of illegally exporting the goods in question. 5. We have considered the submissions. It is now seen that the appellants have a godown at Raxaul. The goods in question arrived at the godown of the appellants on 9-7-1982. The raid was made on 4-9-1982. Till then the goods remained in the godown. The statement of Shri H.R. Choudhury, Manager of the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice should have been issued to them under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not sufficient to issue a notice to the Manager. The contention of the learned J.D.R. is that Shri Choudhury filed a reply on behalf of the appellant company. But, as stated above, in order to penalise a particular person, a show cause notice should have been issued to him and the mere knowledge of the appellants in this regard is not sufficient to penalise them. These are the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in a decision reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 134. Accordingly, on both these grounds, the appeal succeeds. The penalty of Rs. 20/000/- imposed on M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. is hereby set aside, with consequential reliefs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
