2008 (9) TMI 339 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - use of vehicle - penalty on owner of vehicle - The Commissioner observed that in the absence of transfer of the car in the name of purchasers, the purported sale merely through Delivery Receipts does not help his case the same being not convincing. - It has further been observed that the facts lead to believe that the Appellant is the actual owner of the seized car and by providing his car to smugglers of charas for importing charas from Nepal, he has also wilfully colluded in the operation of smuggling. - Held that - There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant was engaged in the smuggling of charas. The Appellant produced the evidences which were verified by the Customs Authorities and Mr. Prem, Manager of Asian Motors confirmed the purchase of the car. - Imposition of penalty on appellant not justified.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling of charas.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, related to the smuggling of 75 kgs. of Nepali Charas found in a Tata Siera Car. The Customs Officers intercepted the vehicle at a barrier and recovered the contraband. The driver initially stated he purchased the car from one individual, but later changed his statement regarding the ownership history of the vehicle. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the charas and the car, imposing the penalty on the appellant along with others involved.

The appellant's advocate argued that the appellant had sold the car to a different party years before the incident, and there was no evidence linking the appellant to the seized car and goods. The advocate presented delivery receipts to support the claim that the car had changed ownership multiple times after being sold by the appellant.

The Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, claiming that the appellant was the actual owner of the car and used it for smuggling. The DR pointed out discrepancies in statements and delivery receipts to establish the appellant's involvement in the smuggling operation.

After reviewing the statements and evidence presented, the Commissioner found that the appellant had not been directly linked to the smuggling activities. The Commissioner noted that the appellant had produced evidence, including verification by Customs Authorities and confirmation from a manager of a car dealership regarding the sale of the vehicle. It was also highlighted that statements made by individuals did not implicate the appellant in the smuggling operation. The Commissioner concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not justified, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In the final order pronounced on 23-9-2008, it was clarified that the appellant was not connected to the smuggling activities, leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.