2014 (2) TMI 117 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Goods seized from parcel van - Parcel contained Charas and Ganja - Assessee contends that he had no knowledge of the contents - Held that - appellant cannot pleads that the parcel van was not sealed when valuable goods of consigners were in the leased parcel van. Appellant made plea of breaking of seal baselessly in absence of any FIR or police report. When loading and unloading of goods, is made to and from parcel van, it is responsibility of appellant to answer as to identity of consigner and consignee on record and their address as well as description of goods. Appellant cannot plead innocence. A man of ordinary prudence and diligence would never believe that a leased parcel van shall leave a station without seal when appellant is answerable to pilferage and loss thereto. Appellant is always accountable to the contents inside the parcel van. It is unbelievable that the appellant has no knowledge about the NDPS substance inside the van which were found during search. So also smuggled goods of third country origin were found therein without any evidence of lawful import. NDPS substance being harmful and injurious to society, there shall be no leniency to the appellant at all against penalty imposed on him - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods from leased parcel van.
2. Claim of innocence by the appellant.
3. Appellant's liability for goods found in the parcel van.
4. Appellant's plea regarding the presence of narcotic substances.
5. Revenue's argument of smuggling activities.
6. Appellant's accountability for the contents of the parcel van.
7. Applicability of legal citations provided by the appellant.
8. Decision on the appellant's appeal.

Seizure of goods from leased parcel van:
The appellant was granted a lease of a parcel van attached to a train but goods, including cardamoms, betel nut, copper scrap, charas, and ganja, were seized from the van during a search. No one claimed ownership of certain goods, leading to a notice of confiscation being issued.

Claim of innocence by the appellant:
The appellant claimed innocence regarding the seized goods, stating they had no knowledge of the goods found in the parcel van. However, the investigation revealed the appellant's involvement in loading the goods without revealing the consigner's identity.

Appellant's liability for goods found in the parcel van:
The appellant argued that since there was a claimant for the copper scrap and they were not involved in the other goods, they should not be held accountable. However, the court found the appellant to be actively involved and knowledgeable about the presence of charas, ganja, and smuggled goods in the van.

Appellant's plea regarding the presence of narcotic substances:
The appellant contended that a negligible quantity of narcotics was found without their knowledge, especially as the van was not sealed. The court dismissed this plea, emphasizing the appellant's responsibility for the contents of the parcel van.

Revenue's argument of smuggling activities:
The revenue asserted that the evidence pointed to a clear case of smuggling, including dealing with NDPS substances. They argued for the confirmation of the appellate order on all counts.

Appellant's accountability for the contents of the parcel van:
The court highlighted the appellant's duty to ensure the proper identification of consigners, consignees, and goods in the parcel van. They emphasized that the appellant cannot claim innocence regarding the contents of the van, especially harmful substances like NDPS.

Applicability of legal citations provided by the appellant:
The court analyzed the legal citations provided by the appellant but found them not directly relevant to the specific circumstances of the case. The court distinguished the cited cases from the present situation, emphasizing the unique facts and lack of benefit to the appellant.

Decision on the appellant's appeal:
After considering all arguments and evidence, the court found the appellant to be actively involved and knowledgeable about the illicit goods in the leased parcel van. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed on the appellant for their involvement in the smuggling activities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, providing a thorough understanding of the legal proceedings and the court's decision.

← Previous Next →