NATWAR PARIKH INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against OIO No. 5/98 dated 28.5.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Bangalore. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE Customs officers detected a case where a container which was supposed to carry mulberry raw -silk fabrics and other goods meant for Page 449 export to Singapore was intercepted by the interested parties who after examination, clearance and sealing of the containers while transporting the container from ICD Bangalore to Chennai Port by road and replaced the goods with 15 numbers of empty water tanks of capacity 1000 ltrs. The appellant M/s Natwar Parikh Industries supplied the said container. Show cause notices were issued to various persons involved in the fraud. The container supplied by the appellant was affixed with OTL (One Time Lock) No. 10506 initially. It is seen that on a request from one Shri Johnson Abraham, (Shri B. Seenuvasan Branch Manager of M/s Natwar Parikh Industries broke open the OTL 10506 and replaced it by OTL No. 00470. The replacement of OTL was done without informing the Customs Authorities. In view of the above, the adjudicating authority held that the container is liable to confiscation under Section 118(b) of the Customs Act 1962. At the time of provisional release, a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 25,000/ - was given. The adjudicating authority has enforced the bond to the extent of Rs. 25,000/ -. He has also held that Shri B. Seenuvasan branch manager, M/s Natwar Parikh Industries is liable to penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act. M/s Natwar Parikh and Shri Seenuvasan have challenged the finding and order of the adjudicating authority. As far as Seenuvasan is concerned, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - under Section 114. The appellants pleaded that they did not commit any offence and the enforcing the bond to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on Shri B. Seenuvasan is not in order. The appellant company changed the seal at CONCOR only with the knowledge of the surveyors. The changed seal was recorded in CONCOR Vehicles Outward Register as confirmed in the voluntary statement of CONCOR official Mr. Raghuraman. There is no known procedure of customs which prescribes change of seal before dispatch of the cargo from the custody of ICD.

(3.) AS per Section 114 of the Customs Act, the penalty is leviable only if the appellant had been guilty of the offence or guilty of abetting offence. But the voluntary statement of all individuals interrogated by Customs had not pointed any accusing finger against this appellant. Since the seal was changed at CONCOR (ICD) Bangalore only, the appellants shri Seenuvasan contended that he had not committed any breach of known procedure laid by the customs. He rightly followed the same procedure for changing the seal as he followed the procedure for affixing the first time seal.