TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 Heard both sides. 2.2 The facts are not much in dispute. Briefly stated the facts are as under :- Customs officials at Delhi examined cargo contained in two pallets on 17-6-98, which had arrived from Hong Kong by United Airlines Flight No. UA-001, dated 16-6-98, covered under Airway Bill Nos. 016-5775-2973 and 016-5775-2962. The examination was done in the presence of representative of United Airlines and two independent witnesses. On examination, it was revealed that the consignment contained several pieces of L.C.D. display modules for wrist watches as against the description of goods appearing on the airway bills "Automobile (Car) parts and metal fittings". The statements of officials of Airport Authority of India (who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., though the facts enumerated in the show cause notice also refer to the 65 past consignments, which were not available for examination, there is no proposal to hold them liable for confiscation. The available two consignments revealed the presence of smuggled goods. It, therefore, follows that the act of commission or omission with reference to the missing consignments and that is attributed to the consignments made available for customs examination have to be separated. 4. So far as the available consignments are concerned, it has been pleaded that neither custodian namely AAI nor Airlines can be accused of being abettor under the Act for smuggling. As far as the Airlines is concerned, - they have discharged their statutory obliga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....serious lapse on their part and is a big loss to the exchequer. Thus the AAI cannot absolve themselves from the infringement of Customs law and procedure and the Customs Public Notice No. 30/86, dated 30-4-86 as they were in possession of the offending goods. AAI are thus concerned in removing or in any manner dealing with the goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus rendered themselves liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962." 6. Appellants M/s. AAI, vehementally denied that, through the impugned order, liability of 65 consignments to confiscation has not been established. Therefore, there is no cause for imposition of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of a parcel. It is also not necessary that the invoices always accompany the airway bill. It is not, as if the customs officials solely depend on the description available on the invoice. It is their (Airlines) statutory obligation to deliver the package transported by them from the port of loading to the custodian at the port of landing. The fact that the said 65 consignments have been received by the custodian (AAI) would prove that there is no failure on their part. There is no evidence either documentary or oral to suggest that airlines had prior knowledge about the contraband nature of the goods contained in 65 packages. Therefore, the penalty imposed on them is uncalled for. 8.2 We agree and hold that no penalty could have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 112(a) of the Act, consequently, is justified. The fact that the goods have been removed from the custody of AAI, itself is sufficient to establish that the said goods are liable for confiscation, for the reason that, whatever duty was due to be paid thereon, has not been paid. It is nobody's claim that, the goods pertaining to the missing consignments did not attract any duty. Therefore, clandestinely removed goods, would conform to be "smuggled goods" as defined in the Customs Act. The terms "smuggled goods" are defined in Clause (39) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, wherein "smuggling", in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113. ....