2018 (7) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Redemption Fine - Smuggling - Truck owner - case of appellant is that the owner of the Truck herein, had no knowledge of the loading of the smuggled goods - it was also contended that SCN does not indicate the proper Section for confiscation of the goods - Held that - Sub Section (2) of Section 115 provides any conveyance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance - In the present case, the appellant herein, the owner of the seized truck failed to prove, that she and her agent the Driver, had no knowledge of the transporting of the smuggled goods. Hence, the confiscation of the seized truck is justified - redemption fine also upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty, Proper Section for Confiscation, Knowledge of Owner about Smuggled Goods

Analysis:
The appellant, the owner of a truck, appealed against the imposition of a Redemption Fine of ?1 Lakh after her truck was intercepted carrying smuggled goods. The Customs Officers found 7400 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Linctus in each of the two trucks intercepted. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but upheld the Redemption Fine, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The main contention raised by the appellant was that she had no knowledge of the loading of the smuggled goods onto her truck. The appellant also argued that the Show Cause Notice did not specify the proper Section for confiscation of the goods. The appellant's advocate cited a Tribunal decision in support of their arguments. However, the Revenue's representative reiterated the lower authorities' findings, stating that errors in quoting the Customs Act's section in the Show Cause Notice do not invalidate the proceedings, citing relevant case laws.

The Tribunal found that no one claimed the seized goods, indicating an attempt to illegally export them to Bangladesh. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the truck driver was aware of loading the goods for illegal export. Section 115 of the Customs Act allows for the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. In this case, the appellant failed to prove that she and her driver had no knowledge of transporting the smuggled goods, justifying the confiscation of the truck. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, citing evidence of the driver's knowledge of the smuggled goods and the inapplicability of the cited case law to the current situation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating no grounds for interference. The appellant's appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced in open court.