9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. The appellant is aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on him by the Commissioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. He was working as marker with M/s. Ornate Multimodel Carriers Pvt. Ltd., stevedore agents. His function was to mark the packages destuffed from containers, with IGM number, container number etc. It so happened that he did not mark seven wooden crates, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been committed by the main offender . After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned DR for the respondent, I find that the adjudicating authority recorded the following findings against the appellant. (iv) Shri Stanley Fernandes was working as marker with the Stevedore M/s. Ornate Multi Modal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (OMCP). He was responsible for marking the packages destuffed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea). Employees of the Mumbai Port Trust would present such goods to the appellant for being marked. According to the statement given by the appellant, the seven wooden crates were not so presented and hence could not be marked. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Assistant Shed Superintendent, Mumbai Port Trust, Mr. S.R. Nevagi, has also been penalised under Section 112 of the Act. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to abetment of smuggling, it is not justifiable for the Commissioner to have held the appellant to be liable for penalty under the same provision on the ground that his omission of not having marked the wooden crates also amounted to abetment of smuggling. This is because the appellant could not mark the goods as the same were not presented before him by the Assistant Shed Superintendent. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
