TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at Delhi Airport, in the name of M/s. Umesh Book Service, as consignee. The documents regarding that consignment were collected by the Customs Officers from Malaysian Airlines on 26-10-1997. Since there was a mis-description of the goods and on the basis of intelligence gathered by the Cargo Preventive, Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the goods were kept in the custody of the appellants. On the request of the Superintendent, Cargo Preventive, one consignment was produced for examination and the same was found to contain prohibited electronic goods, while the other four consignments of the same consignee, M/s. Umesh Book Service, were not produced for examination. Those consignments became m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e validity of the impugned order. The learned Counsel has contended that only duty could be demanded for violation of provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act and that for want of any findings in the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the goods, no penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act could be imposed on them. He has also contended that there is no evidence on the record to establish the negligence on the part of the appellants resulting in disappearance of the four consignments from their custody. According to the learned Counsel, the misplacement/disappearance of the goods keep on occurring at the Delhi Airport, as a part of criminal activities and for want of any act of omission or commission penalty could not be impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the goods therein too, were found to be prohibited goods, liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. We also find that the consignee of the missing goods, M/s. Umesh Book Service, on inquiry, was found to be fictitious person. The plea of the appellants that there was no negligence on their part and that they took due precaution and care by posting sufficient number of employees as a guard, in our view, cannot be accepted. The fact that the goods became missing from the custody of the appellants itself is enough to raise a legitimate inference that there was a lapse and negligence on the part of the appellants otherwise the goods could not have disappeared. The disappearance of the goods could also be said to be mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient ground to hold that there was no lapse or negligence on the part of the appellants in handling the custody of the goods. 7. The argument of the learned Counsel that only duty on the missing goods could be demanded from the appellants and no penalty could be imposed, cannot be accepted. Since the goods, in our view, were liable to be confiscated and the appellants had abetted in the removal of those goods without payment of duty, the provisions of Sections 112(a) and (b) are also fully attracted, apart from their liability to pay the duty under Section 45 of the Act (with which we are not concerned in the present appeal). The appellants had been rightly penalized under the said provisions. The ratio of the law laid down in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
