TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business associate for other courier; such outsourcing a portion of the business of courier does not fall within the ambit of Courier (Import & Export) Clearance Regulations 1998 which places the entire responsibility for clearance, as well as delivery upon the courier. For the above reasons I find no merit in the impugned order and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.C/86240/2016 - Order No.A/94101/16/SMB - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Order This appeal relates to recovery of 4879.90 gms of gold jewellery concealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearance of the goods which were concealed in the Machines and not declared to Customs for payment of appropriate duty and accordingly he is liable for penalty for aiding and abetting in smuggling the gold jewellery by way of concealment in the machinery imported by Shri Dhanak. The penalty imposed on Shri Naik is accordingly upheld 2. The issue before me is whether the appellant could have, within the meaning of section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 which is: Any person- (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such act or (b) . . Is liable to be imposed with a penalty 3. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat appellant had nothing to do beyond this. Viewed in this context it is not possible to accept the Commissioners finding that the appellant became liable for penalty. Clause (a) Section 112 would apply to a person who because of his acts or omission renders any goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or based on such acts or omission. Since the appellant was not concerned in any manner in the importation of the goods this clause would not apply to it. For penalty to be imposed under Clause (b) it would have to be shown that the appellant was knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. There is nothing in the order of the Commissioner which would lead to a view that it had, or ought reasonably to have h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
