2005 (11) TMI 266 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled items under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal of the appellant company.

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled items under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962

The case involved the interception of a truck carrying contraband goods concealed under beer cans. The Customs Officers seized 1500 pcs. of Japan-made Video Cassettes hidden under 659 cans, suspecting illegal importation. The lower authority confiscated the cassettes and the beer cans, offering a redemption fine option to the appellant company. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the beer cans only covered the contraband goods and should not be liable for confiscation. The appellant relied on a previous case, Mazda Chemicals, highlighting a distinction between concealment and coverage. However, the Revenue contended that the beer cans were used for concealing the smuggled cassettes, making them liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act. The Revenue emphasized that mens rea was not a requirement under this provision. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that the beer cans were indeed used for concealing the contraband goods, as evidenced by the interception circumstances and the driver's involvement. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and rejected the appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal of the appellant company

The appellant company, represented by an advocate, appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) after the lower authority's decision to confiscate the goods and impose penalties. The Commissioner upheld the confiscation, leading to the present appeal. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate reiterated the case facts and argued against the Order-in-Appeal. The advocate contended that the beer cans were merely covering the contraband goods and should not be confiscated based on the Mazda Chemicals case. The advocate requested the Tribunal to set aside the Order-in-Appeal. On the other hand, the Revenue maintained that the beer cans were used for concealing the smuggled cassettes, justifying their confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act. The Revenue emphasized the specific information leading to the interception and the lack of mens rea requirement under the law. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, stating that the beer cans were indeed used for concealing the contraband goods, making them subject to confiscation. The Tribunal found no error in the Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the appeal of the appellant company.

---