9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Seizure of Raw Hides/Skins near the border - Claim of ownership by different parties - Confiscation of goods and carrier truck - Imposition of personal penalties - Appeals against the Order-in-Original Seizure of Raw Hides/Skins near the border: The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with Raw Hides/Skins by BSF Officers near the border area. The goods were seized by Customs Officers on suspicion of illegal export. Subsequently, claims of ownership were made by individuals representing themselves as bona fide traders with valid documents supporting the legal transportation of the goods. Claim of ownership by different parties: Two individuals, Atibur Rahaman and Latibur Rahaman, claimed ownership of the seized goods. They asserted themselves as legitimate traders transporting the Raw Hides/Skins from one location to another for commercial purposes. Supporting documents and statements from witnesses were presented to establish the lawful nature of the transportation and the ownership rights over the goods. Confiscation of goods and carrier truck: Following investigations, show cause notices were issued proposing confiscation of the Raw Hides/Skins and the carrier truck under the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and the truck, with an option for redemption by paying a fine. Additionally, personal penalties were imposed on the involved parties under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Imposition of personal penalties: The Commissioner imposed significant personal penalties on the noticees involved in the transportation of the goods, ranging from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 5,00,000. The penalties were based on the alleged involvement of the individuals in the attempted smuggling of Raw Hides/Skins to a neighboring country. Appeals against the Order-in-Original: The affected parties filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal. During the hearing, arguments were presented by the appellants' advocate highlighting the legitimate business activities of the traders, the lack of evidence supporting the smuggling allegations, and the absence of thorough investigations into the claims and evidences presented by the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, ruling in favor of the appellants. The decision was based on the lack of evidence indicating any attempt to export the goods illegally and the discrepancies in the seizure location and circumstances. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants in the case.
|
