2004 (2) TMI 569 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act based on lack of evidence connecting the appellants with smuggling of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the appellants. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence linking the appellants to the smuggling of garlic, and thus Section 112 could not be legally applied to impose the penalty. On the contrary, the JDR supported the impugned order. After hearing both sides and examining the facts, it was revealed that Chinese origin garlic was seized by Customs officers near the Indo-Nepal border from three trucks whose drivers failed to provide valid import documents. However, none of the drivers implicated the appellants as the owners or consignees of the goods. Instead, a statement by Balraj indicated that the owner of the garlic was someone else, not the appellants. Even upon further investigation, the individual named did not link the appellants to the goods. The absence of oral or documentary evidence to prove the appellants' involvement as importers or consignees led to the conclusion that the penalty under Section 112(b) could not be justified.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order against the appellants, allowing their appeal and any consequential relief as permissible by law.