TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he unauthorised import and attempted smuggling and a penalty of Rs. 2,500 each has been imposed on the two appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Krishna Raj pleaded that the appellant is a Port Trust employee and has been held by the learned lower authority to have helped in the unauthorised and clandestine removal of smuggled goods from the baggage in which these were imported and placed in another container baggage from where the same were again removed with the help of the appellant. He pleaded that the appellant was a Port Trust godown keeper incharge of General Cargo Godown at WQ II and on the day of occurrence when the smuggled goods were found kept concealed, he was incharge of UB godown unit also. He pleaded that no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he UB unit was also present. And subsequently, after the clearing agent M/s. D. Jayaram & Sons felt that they would be penalised for the contraband which was put in the package marked Malathi Seshadri for which they were the clearing agents and was pending clearances; he was incharge of the UB unit and he did not stop them from removing the same and thereafter the Customs Officers came and took the contraband and seized the same. It is also stated that he kept quiet and did not inform anybody including the Customs Authorities as per the customs law out of fear. This statement of Shri Krishna Raj, he pleaded, that no doubt has been corroborated by Shri Anthuvan and this also been confirmed by others including the Cooper Sh. Sesha, who was as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... how any denial of principle of natural justice was there, when the appellants had been given full opportunity to meet the charges. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the other appellant Shri Sesha Challan pleaded that the appellant was only a cooper and his job was to open the packages under the instructions of either the clearing agent or the Port Trust authorities. He pleaded that the appellant was employed for opening the packages and he did the job and got paid for the work done by him and that on the day of occurrence he was working under the godown incharge Shri Krishna Raj and that he had no knowledge whether opening of packages was being done lawfully or unlawfully and that he had no personal knowledge about the nature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered as voluntary. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in upholding the findings in the order of the learned lower authority holding the appellant liable to penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act in the opening and removing the part of the goods from the unaccompanied baggage bearing the marks VP & RT for unauthorised removal from the custody of the Madras Port Trust for clearance clandestinely without bringing to the notice of the customs authorities and tampering with wooden case (Malathi Seshdari) which was examined and pending clearance. Penalty of Rs. 2,500 levied on the appellant cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case for their overt acts of abetting and admitted smuggling. 6. Sh. K....