9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of trucks suspected to be carrying smuggled goods - Imposition of penalty on truck owners - Appellants' contention of lack of awareness about smuggled goods - Lack of cooperation from truck owners in producing drivers - Application of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 Confiscation of Trucks and Imposition of Penalty: The judgment pertains to appeals against an Order-in-Original confiscating trucks suspected of carrying smuggled goods and imposing penalties. The Commissioner had confiscated the trucks and imposed penalties, offering redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, which then confiscated the trucks with a redemption option but upheld the penalties. The appeal challenged these decisions. Appellants' Lack of Awareness: The appellants argued that they were unaware of the trucks carrying smuggled goods. They claimed innocence based on a delivery challan found in one truck, indicating they were not informed about the illegal nature of the goods. The driver of one truck also asserted ignorance about the loaded goods, presenting consignment documents from a company to support his claim. Lack of Cooperation from Truck Owners: The Revenue's representative contended that the owners' lack of cooperation, especially in producing drivers for interrogation, raised suspicions about their involvement in the alleged smuggling. The failure to assist in the investigation suggested possible complicity in the crime. Application of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act: The judgment analyzed Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, which holds conveyances liable for confiscation in smuggling cases unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. The court found that the owners' failure to produce drivers hindered establishing their unawareness of the smuggled goods, especially considering the route taken by the trucks along the Indo-Nepal border. Conclusion: The court, after considering arguments from both sides and examining the records, concluded that the owners failed to prove their lack of knowledge or involvement in the smuggling operation. Given the circumstances and lack of cooperation, the court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Order-in-Original's decisions on confiscation and penalties for the three appellants.
|
