TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 8585/2009 dated 18.2.2009 and 8615/2009 dated 25.2.2009:- S. No. Order-in-Original No. & Date Appeal No. Respondent 1. 8585/2009 dated 18.2.2009 C/113/2009 M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pte. Ltd. 2. 8585/2009 dated 18.2.2009 C/114/2009 M/s. Thameem Shipping Services 3. 8585/2009 dated 18.2.2009 C/115/2009 Shri Thameem Ansari 4. 8615/2009 dated 25.2.2009 C/110/2009 Smt. Louis Premalatha 5. 8615/2009 dated 25.2.2009 C/111/2009 M/s.Fast Forward 6. 8615/2009 dated 25.2.2009 C/112/2009 M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pte. Ltd. 2.1 Two containers viz., TTNU 3803555 (which was subject matter of investigation made on 16.6.2008 and adjudicated vide order No. 8585/2009 dated 18.2.2009) and Container No. TTNU 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eized being unclaimed and confiscated not being declared. 3.2 The consignee Khader Nainar Jummak Khan claimed his personal effects pleading his innocence about undeclared goods. His personal effects were not seized but handed over to him. Investigation found that one Zahir Hussain from Malaysia who was stated to be friend of the consignee had consigned the declared as well as the undeclared excess baggages to India. According to adjudicating authority the statement recorded from the consignee revealed that he was not at all consciously involved in the excess baggage consigned. Only when investigation was made and inventory of the goods in the container No. TTNU 3803555 was taken, that revealed excess baggages therein and such goods conceal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all initiated against M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. in the adjudication nor show cause notice was issued to that concern. Therefore, Revenue's grievance is that M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. should be impleaded in the appeal as Respondent although there was no proceeding against M/s. Carvel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. in adjudication. 4.1 So far as adjudication made in adjudication order No. 8615/2009 dated 25.2.2009 is concerned the background of the case is that 148 packages declaring to be personal effects were consigned by one Shri Fakir Mohamed from Malaysia to India in container No. TTNU 2633834 in the name of a consignee Arunachalam Muthukrishnan. The declaration became false when investigation was made int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....necessary party to the proceeding but no penalty was imposed on him nor on his firm M/s. Thameem Shipping Services even though adjudication resulted in confiscation of 6,18,590 (2,76,490 + 3,42,100) pieces of cub zirconia stones as well as other consumer goods and such stones were hidden inside the biscuit tins. 5.2 Department's further contention is that M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pte. Ltd. although was involved in the smuggling of Cubic Zirconia came from Malaysia being concealed in biscuit tins in both the containers, neither show cause notice was issued to that concern nor that concern was made a party to adjudication proceeding for penal action. 5.3 So far as the appeals of Revenue against M/s. Fast Forward CHA and Smt. R. Louis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lead M/s. Carvel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. as respondent. Therefore, Revenues appeal against M/s. Carvel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. But it does not mean to say that there was no smuggling racket operated to occasion export of the smuggled zirconia into India from Malaysia by a premeditated design. 7.4 It is certainly a truth that there was a smuggling racket operated to bring cubic zirconium into India. It is also shocking to note that there was a total failure of investigation to conduct proper investigation in India and overseas. Spirit and intent of section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 was burried causing prejudice to the interest of customs without bringing the members of smuggling racket to the fold of law. When the i....