2005 (7) TMI 451 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Contesting the correctness of the impugned order regarding confiscation of the tanker under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of penalty of rupees 40,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Contesting the correctness of the impugned order regarding confiscation of the tanker under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act.

The appellant contested the correctness of the impugned order regarding the confiscation of his tanker under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The record indicated that the tanker, belonging to the appellants, was confiscated as it was involved in the transportation of cardamom of foreign origin at the time of seizure by the Central Excise officers. However, it was noted that there was no tangible evidence to substantiate the fact that the goods were of foreign origin. No samples were drawn for testing or market opinion, and the officers' opinion was solely based on visual examination. The plastic bags containing the cardamom did not carry any foreign marking, and small cardamoms were freely available in the Indian market. Therefore, it was concluded that the tanker's confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act could not be legally justified. The authorities' view that the tanker was involved in transporting smuggled goods of foreign origin was deemed unsubstantiated, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty of rupees 40,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Additionally, the imposition of a penalty of rupees 40,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the appellants was challenged. The absence of concrete evidence proving the involvement of the tanker in transporting smuggled goods of foreign origin led to the conclusion that no penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be rightfully imposed on the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order against the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, highlighted the lack of tangible evidence to support the confiscation of the tanker and the imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act. The decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of substantial proof in cases involving confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act.