9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Ownership of a truck used for smuggling contraband goods, validity of confiscation order, appellant's lack of standing to appeal.
Ownership of the Truck: The appeal concerned the ownership of a truck used for smuggling contraband goods. The appellant claimed that he was not involved in the carriage of the goods and that the ownership of the truck still vested with him. However, the agreement of sale between the appellant and the purchaser, Karnal Singh, indicated otherwise. The agreement specified the sale of the truck for a certain amount, with possession and ownership passing to the purchaser upon payment. The documents provided by the appellant confirmed the transfer of ownership to the purchaser, as possession and transfer documents were handed over. The tribunal concluded that ownership had indeed passed to the purchaser, and the appellant had no standing to file the appeal based on the evidence presented. Validity of Confiscation Order: The Collector of Customs had issued an order for the absolute confiscation of the truck and the contraband goods found within it, valued at Rs. 22,33,955. The appellant contended that he had not received the show cause notice and was unaware of the proceedings, rendering the Collector's order ex-parte. However, the Collector had issued the show cause notice and displayed it on the Customs House notice board. The tribunal noted that the Collector's findings indicated that contraband goods were indeed found in the truck, and no one had come forward to claim ownership. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the Collector's decision of confiscation, as the appellant failed to avail the opportunity to present his case before the Collector. Appellant's Lack of Standing to Appeal: The appellant's argument that he was not involved in the transportation of contraband goods was considered by the tribunal. The appellant claimed that he was merely the nominal owner of the truck, and his father handled all dealings. However, the tribunal found that the evidence, including the agreement of sale and statements made by the appellant and his father, indicated that ownership had transferred to the purchaser. As such, the tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the confiscation order since ownership had effectively passed to another party.
|
