Judgment:
1. The issue involved in this case is whether the transporter has helped smuggling of the goods. One of the charges against the man who imported the goods was that he has not filed baggage declaration at the time of importation. The appellant before me is the transporter. In the impugned order at page 10 it has been specifically found by the adjudicating authority as follows :- "The said goods were warehoused under warehouse entry No, B-3827 Karappamvettil A. Backer filed a baggage declaration from BDF No. 003843, dt. 12-4-2000 for clearance of unaccompanied baggage declaring the goods." 2. The case of the department is that Mukesh Patel had helped the smuggling of the goods on the basis of the statement of Backer and reliance has been made on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. UOI - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) = 1996 (62) ECR 366.
3. I find that the application of the said case is misapplied here. It is not at all relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the case. The charge against the importer was that he did not file any baggage declaration. When it is admittedly made as indicated at page 10 of the impugned order, the main charge against the importer fails. Therefore, the appellant cannot be charged with the offence of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. After waiving the pre-deposit, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The stay petition also stands disposed of.