Shri Rajneesh Kumar vs C.C. (Preventive), New Delhi

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No.ST/93/2011-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.17/Commr/HKT/2009, dated 12.08.2009 passed by the C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi]

Shri Rajneesh Kumar Appellant

Vs.

C.C. (Preventive), New Delhi Respondent

Appearance

None - for the appellant

Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.53820/2015, dated 23.09.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh :

Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2009, which upheld Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2009, in terms of which penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2007 specific intelligence was allegedly gathered by Customs to the effect that (i) intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be fraudulently cleared from ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), even without examination by Customs Authority. (ii) The location of the impugned container was told to be near petrol pump, opposite canteen in the Import Shed examination area of ICD, TKD. (iii) These goods were informed to be loaded on specific trucks after de-stuffing from the said container. (iv) Further, these goods will be cleared under the gate pass of some other garments. As such, a team of Preventive Officers rushed to ICD, TKD, and traced out the said container near petrol pump, opposite canteen located in the import shed of ICD, TKD. The aforesaid trucks were also found parked nearby the subject container out of which one truck was already fully loaded with the bales and the second truck was in the process of being loaded. Surveillance was kept. After loading of the second truck both the trucks moved towards the exit gate and were intercepted by Customs officers. On being asked, the drivers of both the trucks, confirmed that they had got the said goods loaded from the impugned container. Further, they informed that they were not having any document related to the impugned goods and that they would get the gate pass at the exit gate of ICD, TKD.

3. No one appeared for hearing when the case was called nor was there any request for adjournment and therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

4. The appellant, Supervisor of M/s. Malik Trans India, has essentially contended that (i) He is an illiterate person. (ii) There is no evidence against him.

5. We have perused the records. The acts of omission and commission and the evidence rendering the appellant liable to penalty have been narrated/discussed in Para 46.6 of the impugned order and are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. Shri Mangal Singh, driver of the truck in his statement dated 28.02.2007 stated that he got the impugned goods loaded on the truck from the container on the directions of the appellant, who was present during such loading. The driver of the other truck Shri Satnam Singh corroborated Mr. Mangal Singhs statement. The appellant was supervisor of M/s. Malik Trans India (transport company). He had no answer as to why he allowed loading of the impugned goods and was part of the attempt to take out the impugned goods out of the Customs area without proper Customs clearance documents. It has been brought out in the impugned order that the appellant knew that the goods belonged to M/s. Chirag Textiles, Panipat and were being diverted to godowns at Libaspur, Delhi. Thus, he is righly held liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the nature of impugned words and view of the fact that their value was Rs.1.13 crores, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore we find no such infirmity in the impugned order with regard to the penalty imposed on the appellant as to invite appellate intervention. The appeal is dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-4-