2008 (7) TMI 358 - AT - Customs

Smuggling of goods liability of transporter - orders and findings were challenged because the statements of persons have been retracted. However, no date of retraction is given and it is not known how much delay is there between the date of the statements and their retraction not acceptable - it is clear that Shri Manilal Dand and Tilak Raichand Lodaya have knowingly aided and abetted in handling, keeping and transporting the smuggled bearings from Nepal to Indore and from Indore to Bhiwandi, thus rendering the bearings liable to confiscation and rendering themselves liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Customs Act, 1962 - Imposition of penalty under Section 112 on appellants for handling smuggled goods.

Analysis:
1. Background: The case involved appeals filed against the Order-in-Original dated 15-5-1997, where penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each were imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Incident Details: The officers of DRI, Mumbai, acting on specific intelligence, intercepted a truck loaded with smuggled bearings in Bhiwandi. The truck was found to contain 165 packages of imported bearings, part of a larger consignment smuggled from Nepal to Indore and then to Bhiwandi.

3. Involvement of Appellants: Manilal Dand, a partner of M/s. Capital Roadlines, admitted to his knowledge of the smuggled bearings and his role in arranging transportation. He used forged documents to conceal the true nature of the cargo, leading to the conscious involvement of the transport company in smuggling operations.

4. Role of Tilak Raichand Lodaya: Lodaya, the manager of M/s. Capital Roadlines, was aware of the smuggled consignment and instructed the driver regarding the delivery. He was informed by Dand about the nature of the goods and the need to tranship non-contraband items separately.

5. Legal Findings: The Tribunal found that both Dand and Lodaya knowingly aided in transporting smuggled bearings, rendering them liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was deemed justified but considered harsh, leading to a reduction to Rs. 2,50,000/- each to serve the ends of justice.

6. Judgment: The appeals were partly allowed, acknowledging the involvement of the appellants in the smuggling operation but reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 2,50,000/- each. The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the seriousness of aiding and abetting in handling smuggled goods.