9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Confiscation of conveyance with an option to redeem on payment of redemption fine. Analysis: The appeal in this case concerns the confiscation of a Jeep, along with contraband goods found in it, by Customs authorities. The owner of the Jeep stated that the driver was unaware of the contents of the goods being carried. The owner explained that he had purchased the Jeep for legitimate purposes of transporting passengers and goods to earn a living. The driver also maintained that he had no knowledge of the contraband goods. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the owner or the driver were complicit in smuggling the goods. It was emphasized that the owner had entrusted the Jeep to the driver in good faith for lawful purposes. Additionally, since no one claimed the contraband goods, it further indicated the lack of involvement of the owner in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal highlighted the established legal principle that without evidence of the owner's or driver's knowledge of the smuggled goods, the vehicle cannot be confiscated. As both the owner and driver denied any awareness of the contraband nature of the goods, and with no contradictory evidence presented by the department, the confiscation of the Jeep was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal, after considering the statements and circumstances, concluded that the confiscation of the Jeep was not warranted. The impugned Order-in-Appeal upholding the confiscation was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed. The judgment underscored the importance of establishing complicity or knowledge on the part of the vehicle owner or driver in cases involving confiscated conveyances with contraband goods. The decision rested on the principle that without concrete evidence linking the owner or driver to the illegal activities, confiscation of the vehicle is not legally justified.
|
