TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such evidence - even by checking it is impossible to determined smuggled nature of goods. - Thus no infernity in impugned order - penalty not justified. - C/692 and 153-155/2009-SM(BR) - 521-524/2010-SM (BR)(PB), - Dated:- 22-4-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri A. Gujral, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under: 1.1 M/s. National Star Goods Carriers are railway agents and other respondents are the employees of M/s. National Star Goods Carriers. M/s. National Star Goods Carriers, the respondent company, have offices at Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi. They book parcels from different parties and hand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods Carriers, Chennai and the consignees of the parcels for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order- in-original dt. 1-5-07 by which the goods seized were confiscated under Section 111(a), 111(b) and 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and besides this, penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. 50,000/- each was imposed on M/s. National Star Goods Carriers, Delhi and M/s. National Star Goods Carriers, Chennai, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each was imposed on Sh. Prem Chander, Manager, M/s. National Star Goods Carriers, Delhi and Sh. Uday Pal Singh, Manager, M National Star Goods Carrier, Chennai and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each im posed on Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the goods from a consignor but the declared consigner was found to be a fictitious person. 2.2 Sh. A. Gujral, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents, pleaded that the respondent company is railway booking agents and the other two respondents are its employees; that they have their offices at New Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai where they accept parcels from different persons for de livery that the parcels accepted for transportation through railways are put in a bigger bag and handed over to the railways for carriage, that on reaching of the parcels at destination, the same are received by the staff who arranges the delivery of the same to the respective consignees, that they had no system of verification of the address of the consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e indicating that the Respondents had knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods which had been seized. In absence of such evidence, it would not be correct to impose penalty on them. I agree with the plea of the respondent that judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CC (Prey.) W.N. Kolkata v. Suresh Kumar Nyoflywalla (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case the transporter had accepted a huge consignment of goods of foreign origin from a person in a border area and on truck being intercepted when the enquiry was made, the consignor was found to be fictitious person. In the present case, the respondents are railway agents who book parcels from a large number of persons and in normal cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
