9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the seized silk yarn and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. 2. We have heard Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate for appellant No. 2 and Shri S.C. Jindal, learned Advocate for appellant No. 1 and Shri M.M. Dube and Shri K. Panchat Charam learned DRs. 3. The finding of the adjudicating authority regarding the yarn is that it has been brought into India in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1993 and hence liable for, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and that the appellant No. 1 is involved in smuggling of Chinese raw silk yarn under the cover of unrelated import documents, thereby giving rise to penal liability of appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructions of Bhagwan Tulsiyan, Chief Executive of appellant No. 1 in November, 1996 i.e. immediately after the seizure of silk yarn at Varanasi. The stock register indicates that the quantity of 4965.520 kgs. of mulberry raw silk yarn was issued to M/s. Tirupati Textiles, Bangalore vide challan dated 10-8-1996, the stock register showing sub-entries for the same quantity on 30-6-1996 have been admitted to be fake. Thus it transpires that appellant No. 1 manipulated records so as to show that the quantity of 615.370 kgs. of mulberry raw silk yarn i.e. the consignment seized at Varanasi was issued to M/s. Vikas Silk Mills, Varanasi by making a false entry in Challan No. 658. It is, therefore, clearly established that the import documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caution to prevent misuse of their vehicle in the transport of smuggled goods in question. There is no finding that the drivers either had knowledge of or connived in the transport of smuggled goods and indeed, they have both stated that they had no knowledge of the nature of the goods loaded in the trucks. No penalty has been imposed upon them for this reason. Therefore, knowledge or connivance of the drivers is ruled out. There is no finding regarding knowledge of or connivance in transport of smuggled goods by any agent of the owner. Similarly, there is no finding that the owner of the trucks either had knowledge of or connived in the transport of contraband and on the contrary, penal proceedings proposed against the owner, have been dro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
