9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2009. The said consignment was smuggled from Nepal and in the process of loading and onward transportation into Indian Territory through un-authorized routes. The said consignment of betel nuts was examined by DRI officials, Patna on 5.3.2009 and was found that the same were of Third Country Origin. The claimant of the said goods confessed that the goods were of foreign origin and known to them and none of them could produce any documentary evidence of licit procurement of the said goods. All the consignments were seized on 5.3.2009 after recording statements of the claimant along with truck bearing No.WB 03-3947. After completion of investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to the various noticees and the appellant proposing confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that even though the appellant had approached the Customs Department for release of the said vehicle placed under seizure on the basis of power of Attorney executed by the vehicle owner, Shri Ritwick Biswas in his favour, the Department never accepted the same and did not release the goods provisionally to him. 3.2 The ld. Consultant submitted that the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order dropped all the charges against Shri Ritwick Biswas as proposed in the show-cause notice, but imposed penalty on the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not turn up for giving evidence in the matter in spite of repeated summons issued to him by the investigating authority, which gave rise to a strong suspicion of his guilty. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, he fairly conceded the claim the appellant that even though Shri Ritwick Biswas, owner of the vehicle bearing No.WB 03-3947, was summoned to furnish his statement before the Customs Authorities, but Shri Ratan Biswas, the appellant had never been issued summons and the facts recorded by the adjudicating authority at Para (d), page 24 of the impugned order, is incorrect. The said submission was advanced by the ld. A.R. on the basis a letter received from the Office of Customs (Preventive) bearing C.No.VIII (28)06-Cus/CESTAT/11/9690 dated 31.10.2012, on the direction of this Tribunal to ascertain the said fact. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the limited issued involved in the present Appeal for determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962, only when it is established that the owner or his agent is aware of the fact that the vehicle is used in the transportation of the offended goods. The findings of the ld. Commissioner is that the owner of the said vehicle, Shri Ritwick Biswas was not concerned with the operation of the said vehicle and accordingly, with the said offended goods, hence, not liable for penalty. The appellant was not recognized as the authorized operator of the said vehicle, which is evident from the fact that his request for provisional release of the vehicle was turned down and the Power of Attorney executed by the owner in his favour was not accepted. Besides, the penalty on the appellant was based on the premise that he has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
