9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definite conclusion as to the nature of the consignments in question. There is a mention about the collection of samples in the impugned order from the consignments in question, but however, nothing is placed on record as to the further investigation and the result thereof, if any, by the Revenue. Hence, at the threshold itself, the Revenue has not been able to establish that the goods in question were the same as alleged and the import of which into India was/is prohibited. The appellant, though has denied being involved in any way and claimed to be ignorant of the alleged import, etc., but however, he has nowhere explained as to why he went to the DHL Office at Air Cargo Complex and why did he furnish his photo-identity proof/driving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 544 dated 25.11.2011 and the Airway Bill (AWB) Nos. 2575635322 arrived by Flight No. EK 0544 dated 27.11.2011 from Sudan were opened. 2.2 M/s. DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (hereinafter referred to as DHL ), the authorized couriers, appear to have filed Prior Courier Bills-of-Entry No. 86673 on 25.11.2011 at Courier Terminal operated by M/s. Esquire Express India Pvt. Ltd., Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027, for clearance of the two imported consignments covered under AWB Nos. 2575635333 and 2575635344 and another Courier Prior Bill-of-Entry No. 87259 on 27.11.2011 for the imported consignment covered under AWB No. 2575635322, wherein the declaration inter alia of the importer s name appeared to be M/s. K.M.K. Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke objects could be Leopard Claws as well as claws of other animals belonging to the big cat family. 4. It appears that an investigation was conducted, during which time the appellant s letter addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Courier Terminal, Meenambakkam, Chennai authorizing M/s. DHL to file declaration on his behalf on the basis of declaration invoice provided by the shipper for clearance of the consignments covered under the said three Airway Bills and the acknowledgement to that effect by M/s. DHL were noticed; the said letter also contained his mobile number and signature, but without any address of shop or residence. The same was supported by his driving licence as a proof of identity. 5.1 Thereafter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packages and value as: M/s. Malind Carft Center, Gamhuria Street, Khartoum, Sudan, M/s. K.M.K. Traders, No. 26, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai 600 002, 9 kgs., rings, one and 10 USD each respectively, imported 13.5 kgs. of elephant hair and 7 kgs. of leopard claws totally valued at Rs.2.17 crores in the name of M/s. K.M.K. Traders, a non-existent/fictitious company, conned M/s. DHL, the authorized couriers, by posing himself as the consignee and submitted authorization letter for clearance of all the three consignments, submitted his driving licence as photo-identity proof and thus, tried to clear the said import consignments by presenting himself at Air Cargo Complex itself in order to avoid delivery of the goods at the given address by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or confiscation by any act of omission or commission, neither the goods were seized from his possession nor did he deal with the goods in any manner. 8.2 It appears that even M/s. DHL filed its reply through its representative denying any liability to the penalty proposed and also denying their role as a conspirator in the alleged smuggling charges levelled against Mr. J. Kulasekar. 9. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport Air Cargo), New Custom House, Chennai, having considered the replies of the co-noticees during adjudication, passed a common order by dropping the charges against M/s. DHL. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the Commissioner has not accepted the explanation offered and vide impugned Order-in-Original ordered:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nments in question. There is a mention about the collection of samples in the impugned order from the consignments in question, but however, nothing is placed on record as to the further investigation and the result thereof, if any, by the Revenue. Hence, at the threshold itself, the Revenue has not been able to establish that the goods in question were the same as alleged and the import of which into India was/is prohibited. 13. The appellant, though has denied being involved in any way and claimed to be ignorant of the alleged import, etc., but however, he has nowhere explained as to why he went to the DHL Office at Air Cargo Complex and why did he furnish his photo-identity proof/driving licence to M/s. DHL, but however, the above is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
