2006 (6) TMI 363 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against order-in-original for confiscation of seized goods, trucks, and penalties imposed on appellants.

Analysis:
The case involved interception of two trucks loaded with sugar bags, concealing foreign origin goods. Statements revealed drivers' involvement for monetary benefit on directions of certain individuals. Authorities seized contraband goods, sugar bags, and trucks, issuing a show cause notice. Adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of foreign origin goods, confiscation of Indian-made sugar under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, and trucks under Section 115(2) of the Act, with penalties imposed under Section 112.

The advocate for the appellants argued against confiscation of sugar and trucks, stating lack of evidence linking owners to the contraband goods. The Departmental Representative supported confiscation and penalties, citing lack of proper control by appellants over drivers involved in smuggling. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant sections of the Customs Act, specifically Section 119 for sugar confiscation and Section 115(2) for truck confiscation.

Regarding sugar confiscation, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where confiscation of Indian origin goods was set aside if not used to conceal foreign origin goods. As the foreign goods were only covered by sugar bags, confiscation of sugar was deemed unjustified and set aside. For truck confiscation under Section 115(2), the Tribunal noted that drivers, acting as agents of owners, loaded foreign goods without owners' knowledge. Thus, trucks were liable for confiscation, but the redemption fine was reduced.

Penalties imposed under Section 112 were analyzed next. The Tribunal highlighted that penalties could only be imposed if individuals had knowledge of smuggling. As there was no evidence implicating the present appellants, penalties were set aside. The impugned order was modified accordingly, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found confiscation of sugar unjustified, upheld truck confiscation but reduced the redemption fine, and set aside penalties due to lack of evidence of appellants' involvement in smuggling. The appeals were allowed with modifications to the impugned order.