1986 (5) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of contraband goods and vehicle under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
3. Ownership of the vehicle in question.
4. Confiscation of the wristwatch under Section 11B of the Customs Act.
5. Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of contraband goods and the vehicle, with a reduced penalty from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000. The Customs Officer seized goods from the vehicle, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation and penalty under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant denied ownership but was held responsible based on statements and circumstances. Adjudicating authorities confirmed ownership, leading to the penalty and confiscation upheld by the lower authorities.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the vehicle was borrowed for a pilgrimage, and subsequent events made him the owner. However, statements and circumstances indicated his ownership at the relevant time. The appellant's subsequent acquisition of the vehicle did not alter the liability for confiscation as he was aware of the smuggling activities involving the vehicle. The appellant's claim of not being the owner at the time of seizure did not absolve him of responsibility.

3. Regarding the confiscated wristwatch, it was a notified item under Section 11B of the Customs Act, and there was no evidence to prove it was not smuggled. The appellant's claim of it being a gift lacked supporting evidence, leading to its confiscation under the Act.

4. The penalty amount was reduced on appeal, but the appellant's active involvement in another smuggling incident confirmed his engagement in such activities. The evidence of apprehension with contraband goods further supported the imposition of the penalty. The reduction from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 was deemed appropriate by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

5. The judgment concluded that the appeal failed, leading to its dismissal. The confiscation of goods and the vehicle, along with the penalty imposition, were upheld based on the appellant's ownership, involvement in smuggling activities, and lack of evidence to support his claims.