Page 191 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] GAURAV AGARWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI 725

the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 11-6-1990 cannot apply even though less than
100 kgs - Appellant not able to establish that silver was legally imported and
suffered Customs duty - Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed are legal
and proper - Sections 111, 112 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6, 7, 7.1]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
B. Thulasi Raman v. Commissioner — 2009 (243) E.L.T. 74 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................... [Para 2.1]
Commissioner v. Harendra Prasad — 2014 (312) E.L.T. 17 (Pat.) — Referred................................ [Para 2.1]
Commissioner v. K.N. Eswaran — 2009 (238) E.L.T. A166 (Mad.) — Referred .............................. [Para 2.1]
Commissioner v. Shambhu Nath — 2009 (239) E.L.T. 427 (All.) — Distinguished ....... [Paras 2.1, 2.2, 7]
Ganesh Prosad v. Commissioner — 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1103 (Tribunal) — Referred.............. [Paras 2.1, 2.2]
Harendra Prasad v. Commissioner — 2001 (133) E.L.T. 668 (Tribunal) — Referred ..................... [Para 2.1]
K. Srinivasan v. Commissioner — 2017 (354) E.L.T. 666 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................ [Para 2.1]
K.N. Eswaran v. Commissioner — 2001 (132) E.L.T. 192 (Tribunal) — Referred .................. [Paras 2.1, 2.2]
Maqsood Alam v. Commissioner — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 162 (Tribunal) — Referred ........ [Paras 2.1, 2.2, 3.2]
Murarilal Agarwal v. Commissioner — 2005 (179) E.L.T. 110 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ............................................................................................................. [Paras 2.1, 2.2, 7]
N.S. Allaudeen v. Commissioner — 2001 (131) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal) — Referred ............... [Paras 2.1, 2.2]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 11-6-1990 .................................................................................. [Paras 2, 2.1, 5, 6.1 ]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B. Satish Sundar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. T. Ushadevi, Authorized Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - Brief facts are that based on intelligence, the officers of Cus-
toms Preventive Unit, Salem intercepted one load Auto near Railway Station,
Salem and found to carry five parcels packed in plastic sacks amidst other par-
cels. Consignment name was mentioned as “VENKATESH SLM with the Phone
Number”. On suspicion, the parcel along with the vehicle was brought to the
office of Customs Preventive Unit, Salem. The driver of the auto Shri Rajasekaran
stated that the parcels were meant to be delivered to Shri Venkatesh of Salem.
The said Venkatesh, courier agent, was asked to appear before the officers. He
appeared with four other persons to whom the parcels were intended to be de-
livered, namely, S/Shri Indarchand, K. Srinivasan, Hariganesan and Mahendran.
These 5 parcels were opened in the presence of independent witnesses and found
to contain 101.36 kgs. of silver granules/bars/leg chains etc., along with airway
bills of M/s. Green Dart Courier, Chennai. Out of 101.36 kgs of silver found in
the parcels, 60 kgs. was in the nature of silver granules and intended to be deliv-
ered to Shri M. Mahendran. The present dispute is confined to the said 60 kgs. of
silver granules only relating to airway Bill No. 323030/26-6-2013 on which send-
er’s name is shown as ‘PJ’ and recipient address as Mahendran.
1.1 The parcel consigned to Mahendran had three boxes. These three
boxes had two carton boxes in each box. Hence there were totally six carton box-
es and these carton boxes which contained silver granules had markings with
serial numbers as Made in Korea ‘999.9’, along with lot numbers. Each carton box
was found to contain 10 kg of silver granules and thus there was total quantity of
60 kg of silver granules. The description is as under :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  191