9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 3.11.2006. But his concessional statement brought out truth of smuggling. He could not demolish his active role and concern in the smuggling. Shri Harinder Singh was found to be master mind behind smuggling as is proved from the statement dated 30.8.2006 and 3.11.2006 recorded from Azizur Rehmani Hamid Hamidani. That remained un-rebutted. There was no detachment of the goods from the concern and connection of both appellants. They were found in physical possession of the goods. Therefore there is no scope at all to hold that both appellants to be innocent - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.C/357/2009-Cus, Appeal No.C/358/2009-Cus - FINAL ORDER No.50913-50914/2014 - Dated:- 4-3-2014 - Mr. D.N. Panda and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants were arrested for involvement in smuggling of goods and the goods seized not being disowned by them, they attached themselves to the offence committed. Adjudication was made based on material facts and cogent evidence. That does not call for interference. 5. Heard learned JCDR and perused the records. 6. It was found by learned adjudicating authority in page 60 of adjudication order that four important questions involved in the present case. First question was answered in para 37 of his order as under:- 37. The first question to be decided in this case is whether the goods having Panchnama value Rs.1,29,55,750/- and assessable value of Rs.88,88,877/- are liable to confiscation under section 111 (d), 111(l) and 111(m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n commercial quantities and their import is prohibited, these are liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods have not been declared as required under section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the declaration filed by the passenger no value of dutiable goods imported has been declared. It is therefore, evident that the goods under seizure have not been included in the declaration made. Therefore, the goods are liable to confiscation under section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the facts and circumstances of this, it is held that the goods under seizure are liable to absolute confiscation under section 111 (d), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Second question was answered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mrs. Farida Bano Mohammed Hussein Sheikh, Sh. Manbir Singh and Sh. R.C. Bhardwan are liale to penalty under section 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, it is felt that provision of section 114A is not applicable as the goods are absolutely confiscated and no duty is demandable under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. There was no defence lead by any of the appellants to prove that those offending goods were not smuggled goods. Therefore, in para 40(c) of the adjudication order, adjudicating authority found that Shri Harinder Singh was real person behind smuggling and was arrested and produced before Magistrate. He merely pleaded his innocence before Magistrate and also pretended to be stranger to Azizur Rehmani Hamid Hamidani. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
