TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the Commissioner in the impugned order confiscated the same and imposed penalty on various individuals including the appellant Shri Antony Morris, an employee of Customs House Clearing Agent, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this penalty, the appellant is in appeal before this Bench. 2. The Learned Counsel submits that the appellant Shri Antony Morris is only an employee of Customs House clearing agent and had no knowledge of red sanders being loaded in the container as the container came to Cochin Port in sealed condition. The appellant had not prepared the shipping bill for export and the allegation that rubber seal was recovered from appellant's office is false. He further submits that the entire proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there is an evasion of customs duty in a particular transaction." Therefore, he submits that the penalty imposed on the appellant for involving himself in attempt to smuggle prohibited red sander logs was justified. 4. Heard both sides. The Commissioner in the impugned order at para 45 (vi) observes that the appellant had provided logistics support for the entire smuggling operation. He further holds that his acquaintance with Shri Shafeek P K, Shri Musthafa who introduced him to Shri Kannan who was the mastermind had led to his involvement in an attempt to smuggle red sander logs. It is also alleged that for logistics support, the appellant was receiving Rs.10/- lakhs per consignment, which was admitted by the appellant in his stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annan by one Shri Moideen of Hongkong, who in turn got the said details from Shri Shafeek of Thalassery. Even Shri Morris, in his said statement, has nowhere attributed any role to Shri Shafeek about the alleged attempt of export of red sanders. The statement simplicitor reveals that he was introduced to Shri Kannan by Shri Moideen of Hongkong, who in turn was introduced through Shri Shafeek. It is a fact on record that Shri Moideen of Hongkong was untraced by the Customs authorities. In any case, we find that introduction of one person to another person who is subsequently found involved in illegal activities cannot be considered to be an offence so as to impose penalty upon him under the provisions of the Customs Act. 11.2. In an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority. It may be observed here, even at the cost of repetition, that except Shri Antony Morris, no other person has named the appellant in the detailed statements recorded by the Revenue. If the goods were meant for the appellant, admittedly the other concerned and connected accused persons would have known about him and would have disclosed the name of the appellant. Not even Shri Kannan, who according to the Revenue, is the kingpin of smuggling operations in India, had mentioned about the appellant. As such, we agree with the learned advocate that the retracted statement of a co-accused cannot be adopted as an evidence to conclude against the appellant, without any other independent corroborative evidence. 11.4. It may not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Commissioner for which he imposed penalty upon the appellant." 6. The impugned order observes that Shri Shafeek P.K. was the person who introduced the appellant Shri Antony Morris to Shri Kannan through Shri Musthafa who is the mastermind, and since the penalty on Shri Shafeek P.K. has been set aside by the above Final Order, the question of imposing penalty on Shri Antony Morris does not arise. 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Chennai-I Versus Sainul Abideen Neelam (supra) observed as follows: "14. The learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.)] and the decis....