2002 (2) TMI 883 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of cattle intended for export to Bangladesh, interception of trucks loaded with cattle, ownership claims by appellants, validity of seizure by Customs Officers, legitimacy of export to Bangladesh, disclosure of ownership by appellants.

Confiscation of Cattle:
The authorities confiscated 48 cattle intended for export to Bangladesh based on interception of trucks loaded with cattle and statements of the driver and khalasi indicating the export destination as Narukhaki Ghat on the Padma River. The Customs Officers seized the cattle and vehicles on suspicion of export, leading to the adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the cattle while releasing the truck.

Ownership Claims by Appellants:
The owner of the vehicles claimed provisional release, followed by ownership claims for 12 and 36 cattle by two appellants. One appellant produced a money receipt for cattle sale during auction, while the other failed to provide a purchase voucher. The appellants contested the interception location and timing, alleging the trucks were seized at Nagpur, not near the Bangladesh border.

Validity of Seizure and Legitimacy of Export:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants' contentions, noting the consistent statements of the driver and khalasi regarding the intended delivery of cattle to a Bangladeshi citizen near Padma River. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the appellants' claims, especially one appellant's failure to disclose ownership during the truck's provisional release request. The delay in claiming ownership raised suspicions about the cattle's intended export to Bangladesh, leading to the upholding of the impugned order and dismissal of both appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the confiscation of cattle intended for export to Bangladesh based on the intercepted trucks' contents and statements by involved parties. The failure to disclose ownership promptly and inconsistencies in the appellants' claims contributed to the decision affirming the seizure's validity and the suspicion of illegal export. The Commissioner's detailed analysis of the appellants' pleas and the circumstances surrounding the case supported the rejection of the appeals and the affirmation of the impugned order.