2014 (12) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e import manifest, the said container contained aluminium scrap whereas on examination it was found that goods loaded were cigarettes and ball bearing. No bill of entry was filed for clearance of this container. During the investigation, it was revealed that the import manifest shows the name of the importer as M/s. Manav Export Merchant owner by Shri Sashikant Kamble. The investigation further revealed that the importer M/s. Manav Export Merchant used to clear their earlier consignment at Ahmedabad ICD. It further revealed that the appellant Shri Kashyap J. Badekha had contacts with Shri Shinde, a clerk at Mumbai port who introduced one Shri R.S. Patil who helped him for import of certain goods. Shri R.S. Patil obtained the IEC in the name .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions do not attract the role of the appellant to impose penalty. 4. The ld. consultant on behalf of the Shri Arif Patel submits that in this case, no bill of entry has been filed and the goods have been intercepted at Bombay port and examined there itself. The appellant came to know about the mis-declaration of goods containing contraband goods only after examination. In these circumstances, the appellant has no role to play in importation of contraband goods and also not having any knowledge of such goods. Therefore, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. He further argued that as contended by Shri Anil Balani, ld. counsel, the provisions of Sections 111(a), (f) and (j) are not attracted to impose penalty on the appellant. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was intercepted at Bombay port itself and it was opened and the appellant came to know about the container with contraband goods only after examination. In these circumstances, the appellant was not having any knowledge of importation of contraband goods by the importer. 8. As per Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962, the penalty can be imposed on the person who act of aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. As discussed above, there was no role of the appellant in aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. Therefore, penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act are not imposable on the appellants. 9. With these observations, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants and allow the appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X