9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. These two appeals are directed against confiscation of 49 used diesel engines and imposition of penalties. The first appellant M/s. Khalsa Tractors is the owner of the diesel engines and the second appellant M/s. Delite Cargo Carriers was the transporter who undertook the transport of the imported diesel engines from Bombay to Delhi. 2. The facts of the case are that the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs authorities caused verification of the claim of purchase from Bombay. The same was confirmed. 5. In the adjudication proceeding 13 engines were released and the remaining confiscated despite the verification report of the Customs authorities on the ground that there were corrections in the transport documents. It was also noted that the purchase transaction had not been fully established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, the lower authorities were in error in calling upon the appellant to prove their legal import. 8. The submission of the second appellant is that it had only attended to the transport of legally goods and no offence is involved in the same. The discrepancies in the GR are in the nature of clerical error only and they do not attract action under the Customs Act. 9. I have perused the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the goods. Since the finding regarding liability of the diesel engines to confiscation is being set aside, the second appellant cannot be held guilty of transporting smuggled goods. Therefore, its appeal also merits acceptance. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, after setting aside the impugned order. (The operative part of the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
