2003 (10) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ompany engaged in the transportation of the goods as carriers, while the appellants No. 2 is a Manager of the company. On receipt of specific information, search was carried out at the office-cum-godown of the appellants company and as a result thereof, the Officers of the New Customs House effected recovery of foreign origin ball bearings, detailed in the show cause notice. At the time of search, appellants No. 2 was present and he produced GRs and invoices which accompanied the ball bearings at the time of receipt at their godown from Bombay. But on verification, the addresses of the consignees of the goods were found to be incomplete and fictitious. No document regarding the lawful acquisition of the ball bearings of foreign origin was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een penalized for the simple reason that the ball bearings of foreign origin were found from their godown and for which they did not possess any valid document showing their valid import from a foreign country. But, in our view, this circumstance itself was not enough for invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) (b) against them. The appellant No. 1 is a common carrier engaged in the transportation of the goods from one place to another. They have got their one office at Bombay. These goods were got booked from Bombay by various consignors at the Bombay office of the company, appellants No. 1, for transportation to Delhi. The details of those consignors had been given at page 2 of the impugned order. The goods were in sealed condition. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evidence has been brought on record to prove that the appellants had knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods. The goods, as observed above, were booked by their Bombay office for transportation to Delhi under the cover of GRs and invoices. The non-availability of the consignors or the consignees later on, to the Customs Officers during investigation, could not lead to an inference that the appellants had knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods. 7. Therefore, for want of any evidence to prove the smuggled character of the seized goods so also the knowledge of the appellants about the same, the provisions of Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act could not be invoked against them for imposing penalties. Therefore, the im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X