TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Quick Clearing Agency, CHA and a partner in M/s PH Logistics in which the other partner was Mr. Narendra Singh. He directly and actively participated in the smuggling in this case is evident from para 46.4 of the impugned order, the contents of which are not being repeated here for brevity. The said para clearly brings out that as per the appellant s own statement - Having regard to the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Customs to the effect that (i) intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be fraudulently cleared from ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), even without examination by Customs Authority. (ii) The location of the impugned container was told to be near petrol pump, opposite canteen in the Import Shed examination area of ICD, TKD. (iii) These goods were informed to be loaded o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were not having any document related to the impugned goods and that they would get the gate pass at the exit gate of ICD, TKD. 3. No one appeared for hearing when the case was called nor was there any request for adjournment and therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits. 4. The appellant has essentially contended that he was an employee of M/s. Quick Clear Agency, holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s P.D. Easwaran, CHA. He got the printout of the concerned Bill of Entry from CMC and gave the same to Mr. Narinder Singh for getting the goods cleared from Customs. Mr. Narinder Singh told him that in some containers imported by M/s. Chirag Textiles, Panipat there were old and used complete garments in place of rags. He confessed that either he or Mr. Surinder Singh used to call the transporters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, it is clear that the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act ,1962. Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value was ₹ 1.13 crores, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore we find no such infirmity in the impugned order wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
