TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 at Naubatpur Check post on 15-2-1997 which was found to be loaded with 30 bags of Gambier weighing 1420 kgs. valued at Rs. l,56,200/- 50 cartons of rubber chemical weighing 1100 kgs. valued at Rs. 8,400/- and 52 cartons of Chinese Toys valued at Rs. 1,79,800/- alongwith miscelleneous Indian goods valued at Rs. 2,61,943/-. As the gambier, rubber chemicals and toys were of foreign origin and papers relating to legal import thereof were not available with Driver, Shri Gurunam Singh, all the goods were seized alongwith Indian goods used for concealing the smuggled goods under Customs Act, 1962. The truck was also seized under the provisions of Customs Act. The documents revealed that gambier was consigned to M/s. Jain Co. Exports, Delhi by M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chemical and Ram Awatar Kishan of Delhi was found to be non existent. Regarding Toys, the Commissioner held that the Toys were complete in all respect and the sticker of assembly kit was affixed to mislead the officers; that driver in his statement had mentioned that the Toys were of Chinese origin but were imported from Hong Kong. The Truck was confiscated as the same was issued for transporting smuggled goods with full knowledge and connivance of driver, person in charge of the truck, and of transporter High Speed Carriers whom the truck was attached to. 3. Shri P.K. Sengupta, Consultant, submitted on behalf of M/s. H.C. Heena Chem that on being informed of the seizure, they had despatched a copy of Bill of Entry No. 1451, dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at some marks were found on seized gambier to show the goods were imported from abroad. 4. The ld. Consultant also submitted that no penalty can be imposed on the carriers M/s. High Speed Carriers under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act as they were only transporter of the goods which were accepted by them for transportation as the same were covered by bills/bill of entry proving licit importation; that in view of the new Policy of Economic Liberalisation, the transporter accepted the cargo for transportation to Delhi; that the transporter accepted the consignments in the normal course of business at no extra charge; that being transporter, they were not required to check or verify whether the persons who booked the goods were in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Appellant stating that they deal in foodgrains; that the Appellant No. 1 had sent the Gambier in question without any prior agreement. The ld. DR submitted that all these Circumstantial evidences go to show that the impugned Gambier was of smuggled nature. He reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order and pointed out that the Driver of the Truck confessed in his statements about his knowledge regarding the illegal import of the goods of foreign origin and contended that accordingly the order passed by the Commissioner is legal and correct. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the ld. Consultant and DR The entire case against all the three appellants has been decided mainly on the basis of the statements....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal filed by Appellant No. 3 is allowed. The Penalty on Appellant No. 2 M/s. High Speed Carriers has also been imposed mainly on the basis of Driver's statement. The Driver, as has been observed earlier, has nowhere admitted the smuggled nature of the goods. The findings of the Commissioner that the fact that, consignment of a fictious company whose whereabouts were not known to Appellant No. 2 was booked, suggests that the goods were transported with their knowledge and awareness are not accpetable in law. The Appellant No. 2 has rightly contended that a transporter was not required to check and verify whether the person booking the goods exists in fact, at the address shown in their bills/challans. Reliance has been placed on the decisio....