9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Tribunal. 2. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Interpretation of Sections 112(b) and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Comprehensive Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the legality of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Tribunal regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under different sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had directed the confiscation of seized silk yarn of third country origin, PVC scrap of Indian origin, and a truck used in the transportation of smuggled goods. Penalties were also imposed on the petitioner and others involved in the case. The petitioner and another individual contended that they were not aware of the actions taken and did not consent to them. 2. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner and the other individual were involved in the smuggling activities with the knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal held that the truck used in the smuggling operation was liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the same reasoning applied to both penalty imposition under Section 112(b) and confiscation under Section 115(2), while the respondents contended that the conditions under these sections were conceptually different. 3. To analyze the rival submissions, the relevant portions of Sections 112(b) and 115(2) of the Customs Act were examined. Section 112(b) deals with penalties for being concerned in dealing with goods liable for confiscation, while Section 115(2) pertains to the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling activities. The owner of the conveyance must prove that it was used without their knowledge or connivance, including the person in charge of the conveyance. In this case, the driver of the truck was considered the person in charge, and the burden of proof was on the owner to demonstrate the lack of knowledge or connivance of all specified persons. As the petitioner failed to provide such proof, the Court upheld the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Act. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements for proving the lack of knowledge or connivance as mandated by Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, thereby upholding the decision of the Tribunal regarding the confiscation of the truck used in the smuggling operation.
|
