9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ags containing goods consigned by various parties were being carried from the appellant's premises to the domestic terminal of the Delhi Airport. The goods were in a vehicle hired by the appellant for his courier service. The appellant had another partner namely Sabir Ali in the courier-firm. The vehicle was intercepted near the Airport by the officers of Customs. The bags were opened and the contents examined. It was found on examination that foreign origin computer parts, photographic cameras, cellphones & batteries thereof and watch movements were the contents of the bags. All the goods were seized by the officers believing that the goods were liable to confiscation. The vehicle was also seized. Statements of numerous persons were record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the statement of Sabir Ali, one of the co-noticees. In the absence of corroborative evidence, such reliance on the statement of co-noticee for imposing penalty on the appellant is not justified in law. In this connection, ld. Consultant relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Superintendent of Customs v. B.K. Patel [1995 (76) E.L.T. 508 (S.C)]. Ld. Consultant has a further case that the penalty imposed by the Commissioner is disproportionately high. 5. Ld. JDR reiterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner and submits that the impugned order has to be sustained on the strength of the confessional statement of the appellant. In this connection, he relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant has argued that the appellants, being a domestic courier, had no obligation to check the nature of the goods which were presented to him for carriage. Whether the goods were liable to confiscation or not under the Customs Act was not his concern. He simply carried the goods which were entrusted to him. He had no knowledge as to whether the goods in question were liable to confiscation or not, nor did he believe that any of those goods were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Therefore, according to ld. Consultant, the penal provisions of Section 112(b) were not attracted in this case. I can hardly accept this proposition. 9. In my view, Section 112 is a law that should caution couriers like the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly importable. Photographic cameras are covered under heading No. 90.06 on page VII 353. The items covered by all the sub-entries, barring one, are found to be freely importable. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to which of these sub-entries covered the photographic cameras involved in this case. Lastly, the heading No. 91.08 on page VII. 363 covers watch movements. I find that all the items under this heading are freely importable. Ld. JDR has not disputed the authenticity/applicability of this Book. I, therefore, find that out of the seized goods, some were freely importable and some were not, at the material time. It would follow that some of the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and some were not. 10.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
