STATE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no material to suggest that this appellant was aware of the content inside the container came to India. Nothing is on record to prove that he had exclusive knowledge as to the content inside the container not to be Siemens machines but the machines supplied by M/s. J.J. Machine Tools, U.K. When the appellant had no access to know about the contents in the container, it cannot be said that he has violated the law to attract Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Sub -clause (a) of Rule 112 of Customs Act requires a conscious knowledge of the offender in relation to the commission or omission of an act rendering the goods liable to confiscation or if he abets the doing or omitting such an act, or acquires possession of offending goods, he cannot go out of purview of Section 112 of the Act and penalty is imposable. Similarly, sub -clause (b) of Section 112 of the Act also require conscious knowledge of an offender who is concerned in carrying or removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any offending goods which he knows or has reason to believe that the same is liable to confiscation under Section 111 to be liable to penalty. There is nothing conscious knowledge of the appellant came to record demonstrating his intention to cause fraud against Customs as apparent from para -27 of the adjudication order. Appellant had also no deliberate intention to misdeclare the content in the container. Therefore, there shall be no penalty against this appellant and appeal is allowed accordingly.