SURENDER KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides duly represented by Ms. Reena Rawat,. learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri R.K. Mishra, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. I find that a consignment of 86 bags loaded in Shatabdi Express and unloaded at Kanpur Central Railway Station at about 21.00 Hrs was detained by the Central Excise officers for further action. Out of said 86 packets, 70 packets were found to be containing mobile phones, electronic items of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 72,73,960/ - and 16 packets were found to be containing indigenous goods valued at Rs. 2 lakhs approx. Inquiries revealed that these packets were booked by Shri Surender Kumar, resident of Mahaveer Enclave, Palam, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, Shri Surender Kumar was summoned for causing appearance before investigating officer. The appellant further, vide his letter dated 18 -7 -2011, inter alia, submitted as under: -

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the statement of appellant was recorded on 30 -8 -2011 wherein he deposed that he is the lease holder of Northern Railways and lease of Train No. 12034 was with him since 2 -5 -2011. That seized goods were booked on 23 -6 -2011 by a person named Shri Guddu Pandey, New Delhi for the first time. However complete address and other details of Shri Guddu Pandey were not known to him. It was the responsibility of Shri Pandey to offload the consignment and to deliver to the concerned parties at Kanpur but neither he nor his persons gave any bill related with the consignment and also did not tender any claim of the seized goods. To verify the veracity of the statement of Shri Surinder Kumar and to ascertain the correct address of Shri Guddu Pandey, Chief Parcel Supervisor, Central Railway, Kanpur was written to, who in response informed that no information in this regard is available with them.

(3.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. On going through the impugned order, I find that the adjudicating authority is not disputing the fact that appellant is a lease holder of Shatabdi Express train for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed by the appellant that the goods were booked by him on 23 -6 -2011. However, as he was unable to give the complete address of Shri Guddu Pandey, who had got the goods booked, the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant was in knowledge of the fact that booked goods were in the nature of smuggled goods and were illegally imported into India. As such, he has imposed penalty upon him. The finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority are in the nature of inference. He has concluded knowledge on the part of the appellant on the ground that he granted/created fabricated and fake consigner/consignee for illegal transportation of smuggled goods with intent to misguide the customs officer. However, I find that there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant who admittedly booked the goods in question is the lease holder of the train, was having any knowledge about the contents of the packets. As per the appellants he was not aware of the complete address of Guddu Pandey. As such, Shri Guddu Pandey was to take delivery of the goods himself at Kanpur Railway Station. From the said fact itself, it cannot be held that the appellants was aware of the facts of goods being tainted.