2011 (6) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evidence to the effect that they knew about the contents of the cargo or on any reasons to believe that the same were smuggled, penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, New Delhi as also on their Chennai office under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, Manager of M/s. New Ama .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of consignor as 'Vinay' and name of the consignee as 'Umesh'. He however submitted that the complete address of either the consignor or the consignee is not available on the documents inasmuch as, they deliver the goods against the original bility issued by the Chennai office. He also submitted that he is neither aware nor concerned about the ownership of the seized goods. 5. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notices proposing confiscation of the goods as also for imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the present appellants. During the course of adjudication, the appellants submitted that they are merely concerned with the booking and delivery of the cargo through railways and are not conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seized goods. Neither the appellants are claiming the ownership of the same. The present proceedings relate to imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner in his impugned order has not brought any evidence reflecting upon any knowledge on the part of the appellants as regards the tainted character of the cargo booked. The only reason for imposing penalties is that the said appellant has not taken the correct address of the consigner and consignee. However, as the appellants have clarified that the cargo is booked by their Chennai office and is delivered to consignee at Delhi after production of the original consignee receipt for which it may not be required by them to know the correc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X