9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge against the confiscation of the truck and imposition of redemption fine. 2. Imposition of personal penalty on the truck owner based on contradictory statements of the driver. 3. Appeal against the decisions of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine imposed. The truck was intercepted loaded with bananas but also found carrying contraband. The driver implicated the appellant, stating the truck was taken on the appellant's instruction. The appellant argued that the driver's statements were inconsistent and should not be the sole basis for penalty. Despite the appellant's contentions, the adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation and imposed a personal penalty. The appeal was filed after an unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Tribunal considered the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant based solely on the driver's contradictory statements. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties cannot be imposed solely on co-accused statements without corroboration. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal noted that the driver was a first-time driver for the appellant, and there was no other evidence implicating the appellant in the transportation of contraband. Consequently, the personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was set aside. 3. Regarding the confiscation of the truck, the Tribunal referred to Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, which allows confiscation if the owner or driver has knowledge of the contraband. Since the driver admitted knowledge of the smuggled goods, the truck was deemed liable for confiscation. However, acknowledging that the truck owner had no knowledge of the illegal transportation, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
