1998 (8) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of the Swaraj Mazda pick-up van under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Alleged involvement of the appellant in the transport of contraband silver ingots.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that his absence after the silver seizure should not be conclusive for penalization. He claimed the vehicle was entrusted to a person named Prakash, and he was away when the seizure occurred. The appellant also highlighted the lack of opportunity for cross-examining panch witnesses and suggested the cavity in the vehicle was for perishable goods. However, the Commissioner found the appellant's defense improbable, especially regarding the cavity's purpose. The delay in reporting the missing vehicle and the appellant's non-cooperation with the department raised suspicions of his involvement.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the recovery of contraband silver from the vehicle's cavity, which the appellant did not deny. The Commissioner discredited the appellant's claim of the cavity being for perishable goods due to its size and lack of preservation conditions. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient details about Prakash and his non-appearance as a witness weakened his defense. Consequently, the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the penalty under Section 112 were deemed justified. The Tribunal upheld the fines as reasonable given the contraband's value and rejected the appeal, affirming the impugned order against the appellant.

3. The Tribunal found the evidence of contraband silver recovery from the vehicle compelling, supported by witness testimony. The Commissioner's assessment of the implausibility of the appellant's claims and the lack of cooperation in the investigation reinforced the decision to penalize and confiscate the vehicle. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the appellant's failure to produce crucial witnesses and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.