9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962. In addition Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, Manager of M/s. New Amar Goods Carriers under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Nobody appeared for the appellants. Accordingly we have heard Shri Sonal Bajaj, SDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order. 3. As per facts on record, the appellant M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier are engaged in transportation of the cargo through railways for which purposes, they take wagons on lease from the railways. Till the goods are delivered to the consignee, they are the custodian of the goods at the railway cargo clearing complex at Delhi. On 28-9-2005, as a result of surveillance kept outside the railway cargo clearance complex, Lahori Gate, Delhi, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely concerned with the booking and delivery of the cargo through railways and are not concerned with the contents of the cargo. As a carrier, they are not expected to open the consignment and to inspect the same and have no means of knowing the contents of any goods booked. The consignments are booked on 'said to contain' basis and delivered on presentation of consignee copy. As such, they submitted that the present cargo was also booked by their Chennai office as a routine affair and no particular attention was paid to the contents of the cargo. As such, they contended that merely because they were the carrier of the goods in question, the proposed imposition of penalty on them is neither justified nor warranted. 6. As against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the original consignee receipt for which it may not be required by them to know the correct address of the consignor and consignee. Though we find that the above act of the appellant may not be accepted conduct of a reasonable prudent man but the question that arises is as to whether the said fact by itself can lead to imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Admittedly, the said section is to be invoked when the concerned person is either aware or has a reason to believe that the goods with which he is dealing with, are liable to confiscation. There is neither any such allegation against the appellant nor any evidence to the effect that they knew about the contents of the cargo or on any reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
