AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order -in -original vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty of Rs 2 lakhs on them under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. A consignment of the goods by describing as books/printed matters arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at Delhi Airport, in the name of M/s. Umesh Book Service as consignee. The documents regarding that consignment were collected by the Customs Officers from Malaysian Airlines on 26.10.1997. Since there was a mis -descripton of the goods and on the basis of intelligence gathered by the Cargo Preventive, Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the goods were kept in the custody of the appellants. On the request of the Superintendent, Cargo Preventive, one consignment was produced for examination and the same was found to contain prohibited electronic goods, while the other four consignments of the same consignee, M/s Umesh Book Service, were produced for examination. Those consignments became missing from the custody of the appellants. The consignee during investigation was also found to be a fictitious person and Shri Sandeep Bhaskar and Shri Vipin Kalra, who earlier imported the similar consignment of electronic goods disowned their concern with the consignment. For non -production of the four consignments for inspection, the Department accordingly proceeded against the appellants. They were served with a show cause notice along with other notices, namely, Shri Vipin Kalra, Shri Sandeep Bhaskar and Rajesh Bhaskar. In reply to he sow cause notice, the appellants did not dispute that the consignments were not traceable and had become missing from their custody. They, however, alleged that they had lodged a report with the Police ad that they took each and every precaution for the safe custody of the consignments, but somehow or other, for the circumstances beyond their control, the consignments became missing. They also took the plea that no penalty could be imposed on them and at the most for violation of the provisions of Rule 45(2), they could only be asked to pay the duty on the missing goods. But no penalty could be imposed on them. The learned Commissioner, however, did not accept the version of the appellants and imposed penalty of Rs 2 lakhs on them through the impugned order. He also imposed penalties on other noticees, named above, but none of them has come up in appeal against the order.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order. The learned counsel has contended that only duty could be demanded for violation of provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act and that for want of any findings in the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the goods, no penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act could be imposed on them. He has also contended that there is no evidence on the record to establish the negligence on the part of the appellants resulting in dis -apprearance of the four consignments from their custody. According to the learned counsel, the misplacement/dis -appearnace of the goods keep on occurring at the Delhi airport, as a part of criminal activities and for want of any act of omission or commission, penalty could not be imposed on the appellants. The learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of (1) P.K. Abraham vs CC, Mumbai, 1999 (114) ELT 480 (T); (2) Air India vs CC, Mumbai 2001 (137) ELT 802 (T); (3) Central Warehousing Corp. vs CC, 1991 (52) ELT 272 (T); (4) M/S Killick Air Courier and Forwarders vs CC, 1998 (97) ELT 182 (T); and (5) Gian Mahtani vs State of Maharashtra, 1999 (110) ELT 400 (SC).