PAWAN BANSAL Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order, the Adjudicating authority has inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Pawan Bansal (Appellant No. 1) and Rs. 25,000/ - each on Shri Rajiv Sarin (Appellant No. 2) and Smt. Meena Sarin (Appellant No. 3) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for their involvement in smuggling of consumer goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 13.72 lakhs (which were recovered on 5.2.1994 from three tempos, two near Mangolpuri and one in Rohini) into India in contravention of the prohibitions imposed by Exim Policy 1992 -97 notified under Section 3(2) and Section 4 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and in contravention of Sections 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1978. The Commissioner of Customs has absolutely confiscated the seized goods and has also confiscated Maruti Car No. DNA 1992 (claimed by Mrs. Meena Sarin) valued at Rs. 1.5 lakhs seized on 5.2.1994 in Rohini, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/ -. The electronic goods in question are being claimed by Shri Pawan Bansal, Appellant No. 1 and blankets are claimed by appellant No. 3.

(2.) WE have heard Shri S.C. Chawla, learned Advocate for the appellants who mainly contends that the seized goods were declared on their import into India and were cleared on payment of duty as evidenced by Baggage Receipts and are therefore, not liable to confiscation and that Shri Pawan Bansal is a bonafide purchaser of the goods for consideration and therefore, not liable to penalty and that the other two appellants are also not liable to any penal action since they are only dealing in goods legally acquired by Appellant No. 1.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned DR Shri H.K. Saran submits that the entire evidence on record points to Appellant No. 1 being the kingpin in the operation of fraudulent import into India of consumer goods of foreign origin and clearing the same in the name of poor innocent workers engaged in small jobs in Dubai under fake/fictitious TR claims or under Baggage Rules and that the goods have been imported in contravention of the provisions of law, thereby rendering them liable to confiscation and Shri Pawan Bansal liable to penalty and he also submits that the penalty on Appellant No. 2 and 3 is also sustainable, since the record clearly establishes that both of them had knowledge of liability of goods to confiscation, and yet dealt with such goods.