9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of lorry for carrying smuggled goods, burden of proof on appellant, applicability of case laws, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, owner's knowledge of transported goods. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the Order confiscating her lorry for carrying smuggled goods worth Rs. 5,43,700. Customs Officers intercepted the lorry coming from Raxaul, found foreign goods, and seized them under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant got the lorry released on deposit of Rs. 60,000 and driver's statement indicated knowledge of illicit goods. The key issue was whether the confiscation was lawful based on the goods being smuggled. The Tribunal noted the reasonable belief of Officers, as per statements and circumstances, and cited the Supreme Court's stance on sufficiency of material to form a belief. The driver's statement and contradictory positions supported the Department's burden discharge. The appellant relied on case laws to contest the confiscation, arguing lack of proof of goods being smuggled and driver's knowledge. However, the Tribunal distinguished the cited cases based on facts. The Tribunal emphasized the shifting of burden on the appellant due to the driver's statement and circumstances indicating illicit activities. Notably, the driver's actions and statements played a crucial role in establishing the Department's case against the appellant. Regarding the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, the Tribunal acknowledged the lorry's release on deposit and proposed adjusting a sum towards the redemption fine. Despite upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal directed the Department to appropriate Rs. 20,000 as a fine, returning the balance to the appellant. The Tribunal considered the appellant's lack of knowledge, her approach to the Department, and the circumstances leading to the confiscation, opting for a lenient action to meet the ends of justice. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation but ordered a fine in lieu of confiscation, considering the appellant's situation and actions. The decision balanced the legal requirements with the appellant's circumstances, ensuring a fair outcome.
|
