2016 (12) TMI 1102 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of seized truck, imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - In terms of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, any conveyance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods shall be liable for confiscation only when it was so used in the knowledge of the owner, his agent or person in charge of the conveyance - The Adjudicating Authority observed that the noticees have admitted in their statements that Urea was loaded on the seized vehicle in their conscious knowledge - confiscation is valid - however redemption fine and penalty reduced.

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of seized truck, redemption fine, penalty under Customs Act, 1962

Confiscation of Seized Truck:
The appellant's truck, loaded with 150 bags of Urea fertilizers, was intercepted near the border pillar, leading to confiscation under Sections 113(b)(d) and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The driver's statement revealed that he agreed to transport the fertilizer to Sitamarhi for a fee, but fled upon interception. The Adjudicating Authority found that the driver and owner had knowledge of the illegal transportation, justifying the confiscation. However, the excessive redemption fine and penalty were reduced to &8377; 25,000 and &8377; 5,000, respectively, considering the value of the goods.

Redemption Fine and Penalty under Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contested the confiscation, arguing that unclaimed goods cannot be attempted for export, and the interception was based on assumptions without evidence of illegal exportation. The appellant emphasized the lack of knowledge or involvement in smuggling activities. The appellant cited precedents to support the argument that mere interception does not establish knowledge of goods' smuggled nature. The Revenue contended that Urea fertilizers are prone to illegal exportation, especially near the border, justifying the confiscation and penal actions under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The tribunal analyzed the circumstances surrounding the interception, the driver's statement, and the legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. It noted the lack of ownership claims for the seized goods and the driver's admission of knowledge about transporting the fertilizers. The tribunal upheld the confiscation based on the owner and driver's involvement in the illegal transportation. However, considering the value of the goods, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of knowledge and involvement in determining confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.