9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Liability to confiscation of a tempo alleged to have transported Mandrax tablets hidden in packages containing textiles.
In this case, the issue revolved around the liability to confiscation of a tempo that was alleged to have transported Mandrax tablets concealed in packages containing textiles. The appellant argued that they purchased the tempo for transporting goods belonging to the public, and their driver was approached by a Sikh gentleman to transport packages to the Cargo Unit of the airport. The appellant and the driver claimed they had no knowledge of the contraband goods hidden in the packages. The customs authorities did not issue a notice to the driver, indicating they were satisfied that he was not involved. The appellant was not present during the booking of goods or the search at the airport. The appellant contended that confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of a penalty were unjustified under the Customs Act. The Collector's order acknowledged that it could not be conclusively established that the appellant had any involvement with the contraband tablets. The Collector's main contention was that the appellant should have verified the contents of the packages before agreeing to transport them. Despite the onus placed on the owner by Section 115 of the Customs Act, the statements provided by the driver and the appellant shifted this burden. The absence of a proposed penalty in the show cause notice indicated that the department was satisfied with the lack of knowledge on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions demonstrated good faith under Section 115 of the Customs Act. Additionally, the lack of a show cause notice regarding the penalty rendered the order regarding the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that neither the confiscation of the tempo nor the imposition of a penalty was justified in the circumstances. In the final judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
