TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bus bearing Registration No. ML-05-6875 near Ajnalee Cinema, Shillong on 20-8-1994 at about 8.30 hrs., called two independent witnesses, checked all the passengers, Driver and conductor of the bus, but nothing contraband was recovered from their possession. On immediate interrogation, the conductor of the said bus, Shri Pir Khongsdir admitted that, one lady of Pynursla gave him one polythene packet, which he kept inside the tool box of the bus. Then the Customs Officers had taken out the polythene packet from the tool box. On opening the polythene packet it was found to contain 2 (two) polythene packages and it was found that one package contained 4 (four) pcs. and other package contained 1 (one) pc of gold biscuit wrapped with yellow and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was, thereafter, issued to the respondent as to why the gold be not confiscated and penalty be not imposed on him under the Customs Act. 2.6 On adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) held that the gold biscuits where of foreign origin and smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and FERA Act, 1973. Consequently, he absolutely confiscated the seized gold. He, however, did not impose any penalty on the respondent because he was only a carrier. 3. Now on direction of the Board in exercise of his power under Section 129D of the Customs Act, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong has filed this application before the Tribunal praying for imposition of personal penalty on the respondent who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts out that the remuneration received by him to the extent of Rs. 200/- for carrying the small packet is also indicative of the fact that he was having knowledge of the content of the packet, namely, the gold of smuggled nature. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has gone wrong for not imposing any penalty on the respondent herein merely by observations that he was a carrier. 7. I have considered the submissions of the ld. SDR, Shri K.K. Biswas, Full statement of the respondent has not been enclosed by the appellant-Commissioner. Gist of the statement recorded from the respondent has already been extracted above from the impugned order. From the perusal of the gist of the statement, it is apparent that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
