KIRIT PRABHUDAS FIFADRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the impugned order -in -original dated 29 -4 -2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs had ordered confiscation of the goods (ball bearings) under Section 112 of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ - and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - on the appellant.

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. On 11 -4 -2001, truck bearing No. HR -46 -8137 belonging to Bombay Delhi Carrier (Regd.), Mumbai was intercepted by the officers of the customs preventive while parked in the parking area of Old Delhi Railway Station. On enquiry, the truck driver Manjeet Slingh disclosed that the goods loaded in the truck were ball bearings, toys, hardware items, deodorants, etc, but he could not produce any document regarding the legal acquisition of the same. On conducting search of the truck, 621 ball bearings pieces (No. 6307 K.G.) and 5 ball bearings (bearing No. 22340 CA Brand DYZV) belonging to the company M.P. International Pvt. Ltd. of which the present appellant was the director at that time, were seized. The other goods/articles found in the truck did not belong to the appellant but to some other persons against whom the proceedings were seperately initiated and who are not the appellants in the present appeal before me. The present appellant after seizure of the goods disclosed to the customs authorities that seized goods were imported by his Company vide two bills of entry No. 164033, dated 2 -1 -2001 and 644910, dated 22 -5 -2000 at Mumbai Port and Jawahar Lal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva, respectively. He produced the relevant documents before the adjudicating authority after the receipt of the show cause notice, regarding the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty on him. The adjudicating authority, however, had observed that the goods did not tally with the goods mentioned in the packing list of M/s. Auto Care (L.L.C), Dubai from whom the goods were purchased by the appellant and imported to India and as such, ordered confiscation of the same and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - on the appellant, but gave option to the appellant to get the goods redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) THE learned Counsel has contended that no show cause notice was served on the owner of the goods i.e. M/s. M.P. International Pvt. Ltd. in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act and as such, the impugned order is bad in law on that ground alone. He has also contended that the documents regarding import of the goods had been wrongly ignored and mis -interpreted by the adjudicating authority. The seized goods are the same which were imported by the appellant's company from M/s. Auto Care (L.L.C.), Dubai and no enquiry had been made from that Company regarding non -purchase of the goods by the company M/s. M.P. International Pvt. Ltd, Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.