RAMESH PRABHUDAS MODI Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order-in-original bearing No. S/14-4-1208/83 Pint/(SD/INT/NTFD/749/83), dated 18-8-1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Bombay, imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,0007- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: On the basis of an information, search of the godown premises of the appellant was carried out on 28-12-1983, as a result of which 7 packages containing Video Cassettes and stereo radio cassette players valued at Rs. 1,68,000/- (m.v) were seized from the loft of the godown. The seizure was effected in the presence of one Shri Aboo Backer Shaikh, Mukadam of the godown - the paid employee of the appellant. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Asstt. Collector the appellant as well as the godown keeper Aboo Backer Shaikh were imposed penalties apart from confiscating the goods of foreign origin. The present appeal by the appellant is only with regard to the imposition of penalty on him by the Addl. Collector.

(3.) HEARD Shri Prabhu, the learned departmental representative on behalf of the department. He contended that though the statements of the godown keeper as well as the appellant do not bring out the involvement of the appellant, admittedly he is the owner of the godown, where he is conducting his business. His behaviour, as is evidenced from his own statement is strange in that he noticed one Mulla and another in the godown and he did not bother to enquire about Shri Aboo Backer Shaikh and did not question their presence without the godown keeper. This clearly indicates that all is not well with his conduct. He also did not bother to make any enquiries after the seizure. He did not appear before the Customs authorities excepting in response of the summons dated 3-1-1984. He also contended that the totality of the circumstantial evidences is adequate for coming to the conclusion that the appellant, being the owner of the premises, should have had knowledge about the storage of the goods. The godown keeper is admittedly a faithful servant of 22 years and such a servant is not expected to store the goods without his master's knowledge. He thus supported the order.