2005 (4) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification for penalty and confiscation of truck due to involvement in carrying contraband goods.
2. Appellant's knowledge and responsibility regarding the contraband goods.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty based on the circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of penalty and confiscation of the truck due to its involvement in carrying contraband goods worth Rs. 5,42,250/-, which were unclaimed. The appellant argued that no charges were proven against him to justify the penalty. However, the tribunal found that since the large quantity of contraband goods was carried in the truck owned by the appellant, and he could not identify the owner of the goods, the lower appellate authority's decision to confiscate the truck and impose a penalty was justified. The tribunal considered the circumstances and upheld the confiscation and penalty, albeit reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 20,000/- due to the truck's prolonged custody causing its value to deteriorate.

2. Regarding the appellant's knowledge and responsibility for the contraband goods, the tribunal noted that the appellant claimed ignorance of the goods being carried in his truck. However, since the goods were unclaimed, and the appellant could not identify the owner or prove lack of knowledge convincingly, the tribunal held that he could not be absolved of his responsibility. This lack of identification and claim by any party led to the decision to uphold the penalty and confiscation, albeit with reduced fines to address the circumstances.

3. In light of the truck being in the Department's custody for an extended period, causing its value to deteriorate, the tribunal decided to reduce the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively to ensure justice is served. The decision to reduce the fines was based on the specific circumstances surrounding the case and the impact of the prolonged custody on the truck's value. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected the appeal while announcing the operative part of the order in open court on 8-4-2005.