COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Vs. DINESH CHHAJER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE has filed this appeal against Order -in -Original No. 8/2003 Commr/Cus Adjn. dated 31 -3 -2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

(2.) RESPONDENT Shri Dinesh Chhajer was dealing in computer parts like EDO RAM, SD RAM and processors of makes like Celeron and AMD, which were actually smuggled. The DRI had conducted very detailed investigation and it was revealed that the respondent was dealing in smuggled goods. He was actually receiving the various computer parts by courier from some parties in Calcutta and was supplying the same to various persons and the sale proceeds were not sent through the banking channels. Thus it was established that the respondent was dealing in smuggled goods. However, no smuggled goods were seized from the appellant. A Show cause notice was issued to the respondent and the others who are involved in the smuggling for imposition of penalties and also for demand of duty. In fact the show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 92,23,740/ - under Section 28 of the Customs Act along with interest under Section 28AB read with Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. Penalty was also under Section 114A and Section 112(b) was proposed. The Commissioner of Customs in the Adjudication Order held that the goods dealt with by the respondent are liable for confiscation. He imposed penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he dropped the demand of duty on the respondent on the ground that the department has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent actually imported the goods. In these circumstances, he dropped the demand of duty holding that the demand of duty is not sustainable in law. Revenue is aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner for dropping the duty. Hence they have come before this Tribunal for in appeal against the impugned order, which drops the demand of duty on the respondent. The main point urged by the Revenue is that duty is demandable from the owner of the goods. It was urged that in the present case it is clearly proved that the respondent was dealing in the smuggled goods and he was actually the owner of the goods and the duty is demandable from him under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. They have also relied on the various case laws particularly the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Jadish Bholaji Basule - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 644 (Tri.) wherein it is held that the owner or person from whom the goods seized or order to be seized and permitted to be redeemed on fine is liable to pay any duty and charges payable thereon under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) MS . Sudha Koka, learned departmental representative appeared for the Revenue and Shri Lakshmi Narayan lerarned counsel for the respondent.