9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 10-2-1994, the Officers of Customs (Preventive) intercepted six parcels lying in the office of M/s. State Cargo Services, Delhi. These parcels were stated to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in para 28 that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma of M/s. State Cargo Services, 49 Parda Bagh, Shantivan Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi has also abetted in transportation of smuggled goods. His plea that he is innocent about the contents of the parcels is not tenable which is evident from the fact that this is contrary to the normal trade practice. In the statement dated 10-2-1994, he has admitted that Shri Muk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of declaration about the contents of the goods; that there was no means available to the appellant to know the contents or to know their smuggled nature; that Shri Mukesh Khandelwal did not implicate Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma. Ld. Counsel submits that nothing has been brought on record by the department to support the contention of the Commissioner that was the normal trade practice. He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order imposing penalty is sustainable in law. 6. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that Shri Rakesh Kumar in his statement stated that the goods were meant for Shri Mukesh Khandelwal. Shri Mukesh Khandelwal was the person identified he did not implicate Sh. Rakesh Kumar. Shri Rakesh Kumar in his statement also did not confess that he had any knowledge of the contents of parcels. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
