2004 (2) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on them. 2. Learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on the record, to connect the appellants with the smuggling of the goods in question (garlic) and that the provisions of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the statement of Balraj which was recorded on 11-9-1994 under Section 108 of the Customs Act it is evident that the owner of the seized garlic was Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya who directed him to meet him at Kapoor Hospital at Delhi. On interrogation, even Yogesh Kumar did not name the appellants as the consignee of the goods. There is no oral or documentary evidence on the record to suggest that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X