Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1990 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (4) TMI 139 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Confiscation of contraband Nepali Ganja and vehicles under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalties on the appellant

Confiscation of Contraband Nepali Ganja and Vehicles:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order confiscating 643 Kgs. of contraband Nepali Ganja and vehicles under the Customs Act, 1962. The contraband Ganja, along with vehicles like Ambassador Cars, a jeep, and a tractor with trailer, was seized for illegal importation and transportation. Two individuals were apprehended during the raid, revealing their involvement in the smuggling operation. The tractor, registered under a different name but actually belonging to one individual, was also linked to the smuggling activity. Show Cause Notices were issued to the individuals involved, with the appellant being the only one present during the hearing. The Additional Collector of Customs found the appellant to have knowledge and connivance in the offense based on discrepancies related to the ownership of the tractor.

Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant contested the findings, highlighting that he had sold the tractor to another individual before the incident and was not directly involved in the offense. The appellant's defense included the transfer of ownership of the tractor before the incident, which was not adequately considered by the lower appellate authority. The appellant's implication was primarily based on alleged contradictions, without substantial evidence linking him to the offense. The judgment also noted a lack of specificity in imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it did not specify the particular violation. Citing precedents, the judgment emphasized the necessity of clear identification of the violated provisions when imposing penalties. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates