TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chief of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, like the prior agreements, contracts, etc., to justify the penalty under Section 112 ibid. Section 112 ibid. has two limbs: either (a) or (b); no specific averment is made as to the role of the appellants to justify the levy of penalty. The two limbs under the above Section are specific and hence, the Revenue has to invariably specify the guilt as to whether the same is under (a) or (b). The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignee name and address as Mr. Jaison James, 29/A2, Petal Munnivenkatappa Layout, Nagawara AC Post, Bangalore 560 045 and the consignor name as Baton Star Trading LLC, AL, RAS, Dubai, UAE ; that the said Bill-of-Entry was filed by M/s. Fed Ex vide Bill-of-Entry No. 28355 dated 11.06.2015 and invoice no. 31811 dated 10.06.2015; that M/s. Fed Ex in their letter dated 11.06.2015 had informed that the said courier parcel consignment may contain commodity other than the items declared in the invoice accompanying the shipment and hence, the said parcel was taken up for detailed examination in the presence of two independent witnesses and representative of the Custodian and authorized courier M/s. Fed Ex; that on close examination of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely makes the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 ibid. It emerges that any person who does or omits to do any act which would render the goods liable for confiscation or abets the doing or omission of such an act is held liable under Section 112 ibid. and the consequential penalty as well. The proposals made in the Show Cause Notice were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 267/2018 dated 30.03.2018 wherein the same were confirmed. The findings in the Order-in-Original having been upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the present appeals are filed impugning the same before this forum. 6. After hearing both sides and after going through the documents placed on record, I find that the following vital doubts have remaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the actual role of Appellant No. 2? Mere providing phone number? It is an offence punishable under Section 112 ibid.? 7. The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial evidence brought on record against these appellants, to justify penalty under Section 112 . The one and only allegation against these appellants is that they knew one Salman, the alleged mastermind. They have not even bothered to make proper investigation, and not even of the courier agency who is responsible for cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
