9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. Confiscation of the vehicle carrying contraband Ganja. Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal against the order of confiscation of a jeep and imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant's vehicle was found carrying contraband Ganja, leading to the confiscation and penalty. The appellant denied knowledge of the goods being smuggled in his vehicle. 2. The appellant's advocate argued that there was no evidence implicating the appellant in smuggling and that the vehicle should not be confiscated as it was released under a bond. He cited relevant case laws to support his contentions. 3. The JDR representing the respondents contended that the appellant's lack of explanation regarding the smuggled goods indicated his involvement in the offense. He argued for the confiscation of the vehicle despite it being released under a bond. 4. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under Section 112 was not justified as there was no evidence of the appellant abetting the offense. The statement used to support the penalty was not mentioned in the show cause notice, rendering it unreliable. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 10,000 was set aside. 5. Regarding the confiscation of the vehicle, the Tribunal applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and found that the vehicle, carrying contraband Ganja, was liable for confiscation. However, as the vehicle was already released under a bond, it was not available for confiscation. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal held that the proper course was to enforce the bond rather than confiscate the vehicle. 6. The Tribunal referred to a Special Bench decision under the Customs Act, which emphasized enforcing the bond in cases where the goods were not available for confiscation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the vehicle and the redemption fine, directing the department to proceed against the appellant and enforce the bond instead. 7. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and the confiscation of the vehicle. The decision emphasized the enforcement of bonds in cases where goods were not available for confiscation, in line with legal principles and precedent cases.
|
