PAWAN CARGO FORWARDERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 30/2001, dated 30 -10 -2001. Among others, the appellant has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - and M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwards a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -. The appellant, Shri Vinay Tebriwal is the proprietor of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders. The allegation levelled against him is that he has been working as a carrier and had transported computer parts knowing that the same were smuggled and liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act and had assisted in transferring sale proceeds to Delhi through international hawala and hence liable for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

(2.) THE party namely, Vinay Tebriwal argued the matter and submitted that the Mahazar itself clearly discloses that the computer parts did not carry marks of country of origin to prove that the foreign origin for the purpose of invoking provisions of the Customs Act. He has also submitted that computer spares/components are allowed importation under OGL as per EXIM Policy 1997 -2002 for stock/sale by all persons as such Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot come into reckoning. He also submits that spares/components for computers do not fall under Chapter IVA or attract Section 123 of the Customs Act. He submits that Revenue has not discharged the burden of proof with regard to smuggled nature of the goods. He also submitted that there was no involvement in the act of abetting to smuggle the goods nor in handling cash nor he had known what the parcel received by him had contained. He pointed out that there was no evidence against him and hence penalty imposed on him is not sustainable. He submits that there cannot be a separate penalty for Pawan Cargo Forwarders of which he was a proprietor. He prays for setting aside the penalties.

(3.) LD . SDR defended the order.