9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... booked goods were in the nature of smuggled goods and were illegally imported into India. As such, he has imposed penalty upon him. The finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority are in the nature of inference. He has concluded knowledge on the part of the appellant on the ground that he granted/created fabricated and fake consigner / consignee for illegal transportation of smuggled goods with intent to mis-guide the customs officer. However, I find that there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant who admittedly booked the goods in question is the lease holder of the train, was having any knowledge about the contents of the packets. As per the appellants he was not aware of the complete address of Guddu Pandey. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. 2. During the course of investigation, Shri Surender Kumar was summoned for causing appearance before investigating officer. The appellant further, vide his letter dated 188.7.11, inter alia submitted as under:- l. Allotment letter dated 29.04.2011 of Northern Railway, New Delhi, for contract of leasing in FSLR in train no. 12034, Ex. NDLS to CNB for a period of 3 years. ll. Registration Certificate 13.06.2006, for lease holder in favour of Shri Surender kumar, issued by Northern Railway, delhi Division. Ill. An affidavit dated 18.07.2011 on Rs. 20/- Indian Non-judicial paper. 8. Further, Shri Surender Kumar submitted in his affidavit that i. He is the lease holder of the Shatabdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings were initiated for confiscation of the same as also for imposition of penalty upon the present appellants by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 15.12.11. The said show cause notice culminated into an impugned order passed by the Commissioner, vide which he absolutely confiscated the foreign origin goods as also the indigenous goods contained in the said 86 seized packets. He imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakh on the appellant. However, no penalty was imposed on Shri Guddu Pandey, or any other claimant of the goods. 5. The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act. Ongoing through the impugned order, I find that the adjudicating authority is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found in the office of transport company cannot act as an evidence to show that the appellant, who was a person concerned with running a transport company, was aware of the contents of the packets found in his godown. The Court further observed that it is not possible for a transporter consignee to know or to be aware of the contents of the each of hundreds of packages which must have passed through their office. 7. In the present case, I find that apart from the fact that appellant took the consignment in question as the lease holder of Shatabdi train, there is virtually no evidence to show that he was aware of the contents of packets or tainted character of the same. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to him, I set aside the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
