Page 150 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

372 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Mr. Janaki Raman had given statements that previous consignment of the same
importer also non-declared goods and therefore they ought to have been more
cautious. The goods were cleared and apart from the statement there is no evi-
dence to doubt the previous consignments. The statements were retracted. They
were not subjected to cross-examination though a request was made. Apart from
the allegation that appellant ought to have been cautions, there is no evidence to
show that appellant had any knowledge of the import of undeclared goods.
When the importer consciously conceals certain facts from the Customs Broker, it
cannot be presumed that the Customs Broker has abetted in such offence merely
because he has not met the importer face to face.
6. From the evidence placed before me, I find nothing to hold that ap-
pellant had intentionally connived or abetted in the non-
declaration/concealment of the goods.
7. The impugned order is set aside with respect to the penalties im-
posed on this appellant. Appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as
per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 372 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]

Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
S. RAMKI
Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-III
Final Order Nos. 41277-41279/2019, dated 15-11-2019 in Appeal Nos. C/40582-
40584/2019-SM
Gold Smuggling - Evidence - Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of
gold bars and jewellery transported from Imphal to Chennai as gift to son-in-
law - Main dispute with regard to acceptance of documents (bills) evidencing
purchase of gold from Imphal - Department alleging bills produced as an af-
terthought - HELD : Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that no the ground
found to reject bills as evidence and remanded matter to LAA to look into cer-
tified copy of bail application and to ascertain whether bills mentioned there-
in - Instead of confining to comparing or ascertaining fact after obtaining cer-
tified copy of bail application, original authority conducted re-adjudication as
to whether bills are genuine or not - In bail application, appellants pleading
that gold was purchased vide bills dated 18-2-2014, 19-2-2014 and 22-2-2014 -
Thus doubt raised by Commissioner (Appeals) as to whether appellants in
possession of bills at time of filing bail application itself, stands eliminated -
Since seal of issuing certified copy present on main bail application, no rea-
son to disbelieve same - Also, except for slight difference in name mentioned
in one bill, no serious discrepancy found in bills - Nothing on record to sus-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  150