2001 (8) TMI 1159 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of personal penalty and confiscation of truck by the Commissioner of Customs, Patna.
2. Justification of personal penalty on the owner of the truck.
3. Confiscation of the truck and imposition of redemption fine.
4. Personal penalty on the second appellant based on the statement of the driver.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the appeals arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna, imposing penalties and confiscating goods. The appellants contested the confiscation of the truck and the personal penalties imposed on them. No ownership claim was made for the silk yarn. The tribunal examined the issues individually.

2. Regarding the personal penalty on the owner of the truck, the adjudicating authority penalized him for not appearing before them and moving the High Court instead. However, the tribunal found no evidence implicating the owner in the transportation of contraband items. Non-appearance or legal actions were not sufficient grounds for penalty. Thus, the imposition of the personal penalty was deemed unjustified and set aside.

3. The tribunal acknowledged the liability of the truck for confiscation under the Customs Act due to the involvement of the driver in transporting contraband goods. Despite this, considering the owner's lack of knowledge about the illegal use of the truck and the losses suffered due to custody, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 10,000. The confiscation of the truck was upheld with this modification.

4. In the case of the second appellant, the personal penalty was based on the driver's statement implicating him in negotiating freight charges and being present during loading. However, the appellant denied involvement, and no independent evidence supported the penalty. Benefit of doubt was given, and the personal penalty on the second appellant was set aside based on lack of concrete evidence.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the personal penalties imposed on both appellants due to insufficient evidence and reduced the redemption fine for the truck while upholding its confiscation. The judgment carefully considered the circumstances and evidence presented before making these decisions.