1992 (1) TMI 221 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the truck in question can be confiscated on the ground that the same was engaged for illegal export of the goods in question to Nepal from India.
2. Whether the imposition of penalty on the appellant is in accordance with the law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of the Truck
Under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, any conveyance used in the smuggling of goods is liable for confiscation. The Department must prove that the truck was used for exporting goods from India to Nepal. The adjudicating officer based his conclusions on the depositions of the seizing officers, confessional statements, and the search list, which were not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice only mentioned the interception of the truck and the goods found in it but did not include the detailed evidence relied upon in the adjudication order. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating officer traversed beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, relying on facts not disclosed to the appellant, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant produced five witnesses who testified that the goods were intercepted 11 K.M. inside the India-Nepal boundary, which the adjudicating officer disbelieved without proper grounds. The Tribunal held that the Department failed to establish a case of attempted export, and the truck was not liable for confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation order was set aside.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty
Under Section 114 of the Customs Act, any person involved in the act or omission that renders goods liable for confiscation is liable to a penalty. Since the Department failed to prove the attempt to export the goods, the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant was deemed not in order. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, allowing the appeal and entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the truck and the imposition of the penalty were not justified as the Department failed to prove the attempt to export the goods to Nepal. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits.