2004 (4) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of truck and imposition of penalties
- Allegation of transporting smuggled goods
- Lack of evidence and investigations
- Notification under Section 123 of the Customs Act
- Liability of the truck owners

Confiscation of truck and imposition of penalties:
The appellants appealed against the confiscation of their truck and the penalties imposed after Customs Authorities found cigarettes of Bangladesh origin concealed in the machine and pumps loaded in the truck. The adjudicating authority had confiscated the truck, allowed its release on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 40,000, and imposed penalties on the individuals involved.

Allegation of transporting smuggled goods:
The appellants argued that the truck had been intercepted earlier by the Sale Tax authority, not the Customs authority as claimed. They contended that there was no evidence to prove their knowledge or involvement in transporting the smuggled goods. They highlighted the lack of investigation from the truck driver, casting doubt on the allegations made against them.

Lack of evidence and investigations:
The appellants emphasized the absence of concrete evidence linking them to the transportation of the smuggled cigarettes. They pointed out discrepancies in the dates of interception and the failure to investigate key individuals like the truck driver and cleaner. The lack of substantial proof regarding their connivance in the smuggling operation was a crucial aspect of their defense.

Notification under Section 123 of the Customs Act:
A significant argument raised by the appellants was that cigarettes were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. They asserted that the burden of proof regarding the illegal importation of goods lay with the Customs authority. The origin of the goods and the absence of proper documentation were central to disputing the allegations against them.

Liability of the truck owners:
The Revenue authorities claimed that since the truck belonged to the present appellants, they were liable for the penal action. However, the appellants successfully argued that without concrete evidence linking them to the smuggling operation and considering the lack of notification under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the confiscation of the truck and the imposed penalties were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the confiscation and penalties were set aside.