9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. The appellant is aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on him under Sec.112 of the Customs Act by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (P) in the impugned order. On 13-7-1990, the officers of the Rummaging and Intelligence Wing of the Bombay Customs Preventive examined the consignment of accompanied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the baggage. He was to get Rs. 15,000/- for this arrangement. The appellant also gave statement on 12-7-1990, wherein he stated that he had entered into an agreement with K.K. Mukandan of Dubai and as per this arrangement, Shri Mukandan used to forward unaccompanied baggage in the name of different passengers and used to send passports of these passengers and Bill of Lading alongwith lists of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is not concerned with the importation of the goods in question. There is no evidence except the retracted statement. It is also submitted that the Addl. Commissioner in the impugned order has referred to the appellant s responsibility as a clearing agent which is not a ground set out in the show cause notice and therefore, the order is vitiated. 3. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR, conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and it would appear blank declaration form has been signed by the passenger and given to the appellant. There were several passports in the appellant s possession and the arrangements as described by Mukundan is also sufficiently borne out by material on record and indicative of the deep involvement of the appellant in the unauthorised clearance of accompanied baggage. Therefore, the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
