9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Confiscation of seized goods, nexus of transport company with contraband goods, applicability of Section 119 of the Customs Act, confiscation of truck, confiscation of Indian origin goods.
In this case, the appeal was against an order-in-original that confiscated seized goods, including small cardamom and tea bags found concealed in a truck. The driver admitted to loading the contraband without the knowledge of the transport company or the goods' owner. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the small cardamom, tea bags, and the truck. The appellant challenged the confiscation of the tea bags and the truck. The tribunal considered the submissions and found that the driver admitted guilt independently, and there was no evidence linking the transport company or tea consignors to the contraband. Referring to a previous case, the tribunal distinguished between "concealment" and "covering" of smuggled goods, setting aside the confiscation of Indian origin tea bags but upholding the truck's confiscation under Section 115(2) as the driver acted as the owner's agent. The tribunal's decision in the case of Mazda Chemicals clarified that mere covering of contraband goods does not necessarily constitute concealment under Section 119 of the Customs Act. Applying this precedent, the tribunal set aside the confiscation of Indian origin tea bags due to lack of nexus with the contraband goods. However, the confiscation of the truck was upheld under Section 115(2) as the driver, acting as the owner's agent, used the truck to transport the contraband. The tribunal found the confiscation of Indian origin goods incorrect but deemed the confiscation of the truck justified based on the established facts. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the confiscation of Indian origin goods overturned and the confiscation of the truck upheld.
|
