9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal challenges the portion of the Order-in-Original No. 44/97, dated 24-12-1997 in respect of confiscation of container seized on 22-7-1994 and levying penalty on the appellants, who is a container agent. The learned Commissioner in the penultimate paragraph has merely held that the container is liable for confiscation under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants had allotted the container. The ICD handling charges and transportation charges were directly paid to CONCOR by the exporters. Further, he submits that it is a settled position of law that in order to confiscate the conveyance and impose penalty, it is essential to demonstrate by the department that the concerned person had the knowledge that the conveyance was to be used to transport the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port after duly cleared by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the goods with the container were unloaded at the Bombay Port. Therefore, he submits that the container did not carry contraband and accordingly no confiscation will arise under Section 115 of the Customs Act. 2. The learned DR Shri Sankaravadivelu reiterated the departmental contention. 3. On a careful consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported in terms of the bond. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had involved themselves in contravene to any of the section of Customs Act more particularly under Section 115 of the Customs Act leading to confiscation of the container and for penalty on the appellants. In the case of Vijay Kumar v. C.C. as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 62 (Tribunal), wherein the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
