TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This is an appeal against the Order of Additional Collector of Customs, Airport, New Delhi dated 13-4-88. 2. The learned counsel stated that in this case the appellants is the Central Warehousing Corporation in whose custody the air cargo is kept pending clearance by Customs. 3. In the instant case, the Customs learnt that some of the imported cargo was being substituted either at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. 6. It was their contention that although the CWC are appointed custodian they could not be held liable to penalty as they had taken all possible precautions to ensure safe custody of the goods. That apart it has not been established beyond doubt that the substitution and pilferage took place while the goods were in the custody of CWC and there was every possibility that it might have taken pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and enquiry and examination had revealed that the goods had been substituted and pilfered when the packets were in CWC custody. Hence, the appellants were liable to penalty. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. 11. I consider that the learned counsel s submissions have strong force. The appellants, in reply to the show cause notice, have given the details of the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he substitution or pilferage having taken place before the goods were transferred to CWC cannot be entirely ruled out. In any eventuality there is no evidence before us that the CWC had consciously or knowingly permitted removal of such goods without Customs clearance. 13. Hence, violation of Section 45(2) (b) is not established. 14. The Additional Collector s order is apparently based on assu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
