9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act for smuggling dry ginger from Nepal to India. Analysis: The appeal was against the confiscation of a truck used in smuggling dry ginger from Nepal to India. The appellant argued that the confiscation under Section 115(2) was not legal as the owner or his agent was not aware of the nature of the goods. The appellant highlighted that there was no evidence implicating the owner and that the driver stated the goods were of Nepalese origin. The appellant contended that there was no material to prove the owner's knowledge of the offending goods, thus challenging the confiscation. In response, the respondent argued that the co-driver was aware of the non-Nepalese origin of the goods, as informed by Bajrang Transporters. The respondent emphasized that the adjudication order punished other individuals connected to the offence, implying their guilt. The respondent pointed out that none of the parties involved had appealed, indicating their acknowledgment of the offence. The respondent supported the confiscation based on evidence that the driver and co-driver were aware of the goods' origin, which was not challenged. The appellant's advocate reiterated that the driver's responsibility in a public carrier context was limited, especially when supported by valid documents indicating Nepalese origin. The advocate referenced previous judgments where confiscation of conveyance was not upheld due to lack of evidence of the owner's or agent's knowledge of the goods being smuggled. The advocate argued that in this case, the owner and agent had no reason to believe the goods were offending, given the valid documentation and customs assessment. Upon review, it was found that the owner of the truck was not involved or aware of the smuggling, as per the adjudication order. The only evidence against the truck was the co-driver's statement about the goods' foreign origin. However, since the goods had valid documentation and were accepted by customs, the co-driver's statement was deemed ambiguous. It was concluded that the co-driver did not qualify as an agent of the owner, and there was insufficient evidence to prove the owner's knowledge of transporting offending goods. Consequently, the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with relief to the appellants.
|
