TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10.000/-, stands transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for being disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. 2. On 7-1-1972 at about 4 PM on the basis of prior information the Asst. Collector of Customs, Kozhikode Division, along with the officers visited the godown at No. 22, M/s. Patel Volkart Ltd. at Kozhikode known as "Bales Godown" and recovered therefrom contraband goods of various types such as typewriters, grinders, bread roasters, shock absorbers etc. of foreign origin detailed in the impugned order and valued at Rs. 5,75,640/-, in 82 bundles. The authorities effected seizure of the same and instituted proceedings against various persons and in the present appeal I a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in harbouring the smuggled goods". It was therefore submitted that accepting entire evidence on record in entirety, no evidence is brought home against the appellant and at any rate the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned SDR urged that in the second statement recorded from the appellant on 13-4-1972 he had stated that he knew about the storage of contraband goods in the godown in question and did not disclose it to the authorities for fear. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The short question that arises in the present appeal is whether there is any legal evidence on record either direct or circumstantial to bring home the charge of abetme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore relevant is the fact that contraband was found from a godown, for whose hiring, Shri R.P. Hussain had taken the trouble of meeting the Branch Manager, M/s. Patel Volkart Ltd." The Board also in considering the evidence in the impugned order, has observed as under: "The same applies to R.P. Hussain but it is evident that his role was not directly connected with the handling of the smuggled goods. He was only aware of the nature of the transactions and to that extent he was somewhat concerned in harbouring the smuggled goods. He has therefore been correctly found to be liable to penalty by the Collector but considering the somewhat limited role played by him, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000/-". In the ent....