2010 (1) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Seizure of gold bars, seizure of vehicles with special cavities, seizure of Indian currency, confiscation of currency, confiscation of vehicles, lack of evidence for smuggling, ownership of seized vehicles.

In this case, 575 gold bars were seized along with three vehicles - a Mahindra & Mahindra Commander vehicle, a Mahindra & Mahindra Armada vehicle, and a Maruti 800 Car. The vehicles were seized as they were found with special cavities for smuggling goods. Additionally, Indian currency of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was seized from an individual. The Commissioner observed that the currency was liable for confiscation but omitted to do so in the order. Regarding the vehicles, the Commissioner held that they were not liable for confiscation due to lack of evidence showing they were used for smuggling.

The Tribunal noted that a previous decision had already ruled against the confiscation of the currency. Therefore, the stay application filed by the Revenue was rejected. As for the vehicles, the Tribunal found that under Section 115(1)(a) of the Customs Act, vehicles specially constructed for smuggling could be confiscated if found in the Customs area. However, the department failed to prove the vehicles were used for smuggling. Despite this, investigations revealed discrepancies in ownership details of the vehicles, with owners denying knowledge of the vehicles or being untraceable. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to set aside the Commissioner's order regarding the confiscation of the vehicles, and thus rejected the appeals and stay applications. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of response from the owners, suggesting that the department could have disposed of the vehicles if no response was received.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the confiscation of the currency and the vehicles, emphasizing the need for evidence of smuggling activities and the discrepancies in ownership details as crucial factors in the judgment. The lack of response from the owners and the absence of concrete evidence played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision to reject the appeals and stay applications.