9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalties on the appellants. 2. Confiscation of car No. MRX 5016. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants: The appellants challenged the personal penalties imposed on them and the confiscation of car No. MRX 5016, but did not dispute the absolute confiscation of the seized textiles, the two Ambassador cars (MMD 4897 and MMB 7540), or the truck (MHT 6667). The facts established that the seized goods were smuggled textiles and that the vehicles were used in their carriage. The Department relied on the statements of the appellants Lacchu and Pishu, the driver and cleaner of the truck, the mechanic who repaired the truck, and a transport agent. The statements implicated the appellants in the smuggling activities. Lacchu and Pishu were found traveling in car MRX 5016, and a page containing accounts of textiles was recovered from the car, written by Pishu. Lacchu's statement detailed his involvement with Shamshi in smuggling activities, corroborated by the recovery of smuggled goods and other circumstantial evidence. The appellant Shamshi denied ownership of the vehicles and connection with the seized goods. He also requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was denied. The Tribunal found that the unsigned statements of Lacchu and Pishu were voluntary and truthful, and the circumstantial evidence corroborated their statements. The denial of cross-examination did not render the statements inadmissible or without probative value, as there was no allegation of enmity or bias against the witnesses. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on Shamshi, Lacchu, and Pishu, finding no compelling reasons to interfere with the lower authorities' orders. 2. Confiscation of Car No. MRX 5016: The Additional Collector and the Board ordered the confiscation of car No. MRX 5016 based on the finding of dry grass in the luggage boot, similar to that used to conceal the packages in the ditch. However, the seizure panchnama did not show any such grass in this car. The only incriminating document found was a torn page with accounts of textiles, which was insufficient to order confiscation. There was no positive evidence that the car was used in the carriage of smuggled goods. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order for car No. MRX 5016, directing its release to the registered owner. Conclusion: The appeals of Pishu and Shamshi were rejected, confirming the penalties imposed on them. The appeal of Lacchu was allowed in part, confirming the penalty but setting aside the confiscation of car No. MRX 5016, which was ordered to be released to its registered owner.
|
