9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as to how he connects the petitioner with the tainted consignments. This is required because charge against the petitioner is criminal in nature (i.e.,) charge of smuggling when admittedly it was an unaccompanied baggage. There should be a clear finding to show that the petitioner, with full knowledge, had filed baggage declaration and used his passport for clearing the goods. It cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner had knowledge that the baggage contained tainted goods. Admittedly, there is no statement recorded from Durai Srinivasan, who was evading summons. Thus, the finding against the petitioner is based on presumption, as admittedly there was no direct evidence to show that the petitioner had knowledge of the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to India in contravention of the provisions of Section 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, read with 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and para 2.20 of Exim Policy 2002-2007 should not confiscated under Section 111(d), (i) (l) and (m) of the Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed on both of them under Section 112(a) of the Act. The baggage from which the goods were seized was an unaccompanied baggage. The fact that the petitioner did not travel to the country from which the goods originated is not disputed. In other words there was no proof to show that the petitioner had travelled to Hong Kong and the passport did not contain any such endorsement. 4. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had given his passport to one Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n admittedly it was an unaccompanied baggage. There should be a clear finding to show that the petitioner, with full knowledge, had filed baggage declaration and used his passport for clearing the goods. Then only, responsibility can be fixed on the petitioner, more so, when personal penalty is levied. 8. However, no such finding has been rendered by the original authority. This aspect of the matter was not dealt with by the Appellate Authority, but he reduced the penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. The Revisional Authority did not reduce the penalty, but dismissed the revision application. While taking note of the grounds of the revision, the Revisional Authority viz., the third respondent, has noted that in the show cause notice, statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
