TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sand only) each imposed on them under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Their Appeals have been registered as Appeal case Nos. CDM-181 and 182 of 2004. 1.3 On 19-9-2003, the first Appellant arrived at Netaji Subhash Ch. Bose International Airport, Kolkata by Flight No. IC 732 from Bangkok. He was found in possession of two black zipper bags and one of such bags contained Cubic Zirconia of 45.486 Kgs. (gross) approximately and silver chain of 5.1 Kgs. (gross) approximately that was detected by x-ray at exit gate of the above airport and in absence of any evidence proving legal importation thereof were seized. He was subject to interrogation on various dates. Neither the Appellant could produce any evidence subsequent to seizure nor he could disclose identity of the persons for whom he was carrying the seized goods. Process of interrogation continued from 19-9-2003 followed by visit of the Customs Officers to the local address of that Appellant to know his involvement in the questionable act. Also investigation to his native place in village Harka-Ghumal, P.S. Padronal, Distt. Kusinagar, Uttar Pradesh revealed that he was living at Kolkata for three years prior to investigation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods that was seized from the first Appellant was not owned by him because his solvency was not more than Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Sri Mishra also failed to answer who was the owner of seized goods. He denied to have known Shri Dinesh Singh, Shri Rakesh Singh and Shri Rajinder Singh. 1.8 With above thorough enquiry, a case was made against first Appellant with charge of smuggling. Learned Adjudicating Authority hearing the first Appellant and also examining his reply dated 7-6-04 in response to show cause notice, statements recorded from different persons including the Appellant came to the conclusion that the cubic zirconia and the silver chain were smuggled goods without being evidenced by legal importation thereof and that was held to be confiscable with imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Section 112(a) and 112 (b) of Customs Act, 1962. Also two black zipper bags were seized and confiscated. So also the used mobile phone. However, he was granted option for redemption of the seized goods depositing redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). While holding so, the Authority discarded plea of Appellant that another passenger ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n into India by somebody as per bill copies subsequently received by Authority through a letter said to have been sent by one of his relatives. This was done to inculpate him to charges. But he was innocent. The Appellant having been found with the goods he ma be exonerated from charges for no fault of him. He should not face severe penal consequence of law. 4.1 Learned Counsel Shri Faisal Farooq, Advocate appearing for second & third Appellant submitted that there is no iota of evidence against both Appellants to prove their involvement. There was nothing in record to suggest that the goods seized was from that bag which was examined by both Appellants. They discharged their duties in good faith and they had examined the bags which were produced before them. The bags so examined did not contain any goods that was under seizure. For excess baggage as that was found in course of examination on 19-9-2003, receipt was also made by them for realisation of duty. The Department without bringing cogent evidence proving the impugned bag was the same bag that was examined by both Appellants, they were harassed by penalties imposed on them. 4.2 He submitted that there was nothing in eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horough investigation when all the Appellants were fund to have committed breach of law, they were rightly dealt by the learned Adjudicating Authority by an elaborate and reasoned Order. Therefore such Order should not be interfered. 6. Heard both sides and perused record. It is an uncontroversial fact on record that the first appellant, at the exit gate was found in possession of a black zipper bag containing the seized goods. No evidence could also be adduced by that Appellant at the spot or thereafter to prove legal importation of the seized goods. That Appellant also did not reveal name of persons who engaged him in illegal import when his solvency was doubted. Concealing identity of the principal, the agent has to face penal consequence of law when he was caught red handed with smuggled goods. Appellant's active involvement in smuggling was not ruled out by any evidence. Valuation of goods was also not contradicted by any cogent evidence. The letters said to have been issued by Shri Bhola Yadav, a relation of the first Appellant having been disowned by him to have been issued, the enclosures showing purchase of the seized goods lost their credence. Illegal import of seized go....