GIRISH KUMAR MALIK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein who is the proprietor of M/s. Aerowisers, a Cargo Clearing Agency since 1993, is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon him in terms of Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that he was concerned with the attempt by Shri Nipun Mehta to smuggle out foreign currency amounting to US 2,03,7007 -illegally.

(2.) WE have heard Shri C. Hari Shankar, learned Advocate and Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR.

(3.) WE find that the only evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority for the purpose of taking penal action against the appellant is the fact that he had accompanied Mr. Nipun Mehta to the office of M/s. Sunrise Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. who issued the airway bill relating to the seized goods on behalf of the carrier, M/s. Singapore Airlines and to the office of Singapore Airlines. The appellant's submission is that he knew Mr. Nipun Mehta well as he was also in the same business of cargo clearance and further they also lived in the adjoining neighbourhoods. We find that none of the persons whose statements have been recorded have implicated the appellant. Shri N.S. Bisht, Operation Manager of M/s. Sunrise Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. has only identified the photograph of the appellant as the person who used to visit his office along with Mr. Nipun Mehta. Shri F. Vaz, Customer Service Agent of Singapore Airlines has also identified the photograph of the appellant only as the person who had come along with Mr. Nipun Mehta to his office. Ms. Puja Mehta, sister of Mr. Nipun Mehta has identified the photograph of the appellant and stated that the appellant and her brother were friends. The Department has not recorded the statement of the kingpin viz. Mr. Nipun Mehta. The evidence on record is too flimsy for the purpose of holding that the appellant was involved in the attempt to smuggle out foreign currency. The material on record is not sufficient for the purpose of imposition of penalty on the appellant. Since the Department has not been able to substantiate its case against the appellant, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.