9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of car and imposition of penalty under Customs Act for using the vehicle in smuggling activities. Analysis: The appellant's car was confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under Order No. 10/98 for being used in concealing and transporting contraband. The contraband, 15 gold bars, were found on individuals traveling in the car. The appellant, represented by Shri S.P. Majumdar, argued that he was innocent, a dealer in photo-chemicals, and had sent his car to pick up a friend who purchased goods from him. He claimed no knowledge of the gold smuggling operation and cited Customs Act Section 115(2) regarding non-liability if the conveyance was used without the owner's knowledge. The JDR, Shri R.K. Roy, contended that since the car was used for smuggling goods and individuals involved in smuggling, its confiscation was justified. Referring to specific parts of the impugned Order, he highlighted evidence indicating the appellant's involvement in facilitating the transportation of contraband gold. Roy emphasized the difficulty of establishing direct evidence in smuggling cases and advocated for considering circumstantial evidence, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bhoormal. In response, Shri S.P. Majumdar reiterated that there was no evidence connecting the appellant to the smuggling operation. He argued that statements from involved parties did not implicate the appellant's knowledge or participation in the illegal activities, emphasizing that the appellant was unaware of the true purpose behind lending his car for transportation. Upon review, the judge found no evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling offense. None of the statements indicated the appellant's awareness of the illegal activities or his involvement in facilitating the transportation of contraband. The judge noted the appellant's prior acquaintance with the individual involved and the circumstances of lending the car, concluding that the confiscation of the car and the penalty imposed were unjustified. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|
