Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 600 - MADRAS HIGH COURTPenalty - smuggling of cultured pearls, consumer goods and cellphone accessories of foreign origin - unaccompanied baggage - The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had given his passport to one Mr.Durai Srinivasan for clearing the consignments and therefore, the respondent would state that the petitioner would have had the knowledge of the contents of the baggage - Held that: - What is important to note is that the original authority while imposing penalty on the petitioner vide its order dated 29.09.2003 did not specifically render a finding 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 of the baggage and goods were being smuggled into India. Therefore, the imposition of penalty on the petitioner alone and allowing the other person viz., Durai Srinivasan to go scot-free is not sustainable. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|