TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said courier material was M/s. Mother Linis Shipping LLC, Jebel Ali, South Free Zone Dubai, UAE. They had shipped the aforesaid consignments of 14 pieces having gross weight 440.00 kgs. by Qatar Airways vide Airway Bill No. 157-62923932, dated 18-2-2009. The nature and quantity of goods were declared as CONSOL CARGO, as per Manifest HAWB#000129, 93X61X25714. The Courier had declared value for Customs as NCV, without giving the description of goods and the same was consigned to M/s. Amigo Logistics, CG Road, Ahmedabad. However, based on the intelligence, the said packages were screened and opened under panchnama dated 20-2-2009 by the SIIB Section of the H.Q., and it was found to contain CAPITAL brand cigarettes bearing the marks as 'FILTER KINGS CAPITAL FINEST VIRGINIA FILTER CIGARETTES' - 2,80,000 Nos. (1400 cases, each containing 10 packets and 20 Cigarettes in each packet) classifiable under CTSH 2402 20 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said consignment of Cigarettes valued at Rs. 9,80,000/- (LMV) and Rs. 2,28,917/- (CIF) was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under panchnama dated 14-3-2009. The test report dated 13-5-2009, from Chemical Examiner, CRCL, Vad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62 of the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant herein i.e. M/s. Amigo Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the first appellate authority on various grounds. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions and after following the due process of law, disagreed with the contentions raised, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 4. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, after giving overall factual position of the case, would submit that both the lower authorities have admitted that the goods in question which are sought to be considered as imported by the appellants were declared in the manifest as console cargo and not as courier bags. It is his submission that no package which is described as console cargo could have been received at the courier baggage cell for the purpose of clearance as courier bag and for this proposition, he would draw my attention to Public Notice No. 16/2008, dated 10-7-2008 issued by office of the Commissioner of Custom House, Ahmedabad. It is also his submission that there is every possibility that there could be a mis-mix up in the cargo at the load port and/or that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x David has accepted the statements given by Shri Rajesh Kherubhav Phalke, authorised person and the said statements are clearly implicating the courier agency in importing and for filing misdeclaration of import of goods. He would submit and draw my attention to a letter dated 20-2-2009 as written by M/s. Amigo Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. to Qatar Airways wherein they had authorised one Shri Sanjay Pandav to clear the goods and delivery of the consignment. It is his submission that such an authorisation would indicate that the appellant had been aware of the consignment coming through Qatar Airways. He would also refer to the CBE-IV filed by the appellant and submit that there was no address of the consignee in the said bill of entry and all the addresses were incomplete were admitted in the statements of the employees of the appellant. It is his submission that in a nutshell, the courier agency, the appellant herein, was very much aware of the fact that the consignment which has come by Qatar Airways was the consignment for which courier bill of entry was filed by them. 6. Ld. counsel in rejoinder reads the entire statement of Shri Ashish N. Patel, employee of M/s. Amigo Logi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll at ACC Ahmedabad. This procedure which was explained by the ld. counsel and also find mentions in the public notice No. 16/2008 is undisputed by the Id. authorised representative for the department. I find that the appellant's contentions that they were not aware as to how the console cargo can be attributed to a cargo which has been imported by them, has strong force. I find that in the public notice dated 10-7-2008, the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad has clearly brought to the notice the procedures and in the said procedure, it is indicated that all the courier cargo should arrive in the bags which is packed separately in an identifiable courier company bags with appropriate labels indicating documents, samples and free gifts, dutiable and or commercial goods and each package of the import or export goods shall bear a declaration by the sender regarding the contents of the package and value thereof. 13. On perusal of the panchanama which was recorded on 20-2-2009, I find that there is no mention as to the consignment was in an identifiable courier company bag of the appellant. The ld. counsel would demonstrate before me that the appellant has got spec....