9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of hides and skins under Customs Act, 1962 2. Confiscation of the truck under Customs Act, 1962 3. Imposition of personal penalties under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 Confiscation of Hides and Skins: The case involved the confiscation of hides and skins under Sections 113(b) and 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Officers seized 1300 pieces of cows' skins, 80 pieces of buffaloes' skins, and 1200 pieces of head skins from a carrier truck apprehended near the Irrigation canal road. The goods were suspected to be unauthorisedly exported to Bangladesh in contravention of relevant laws. The adjudicating authority issued an order confiscating the seized hides and skins. Confiscation of the Truck: The carrier truck, bearing registration number OAW-4301, was also confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the truck, which had already been released provisionally against a security deposit. The fine amount was to be adjusted against the security deposit, with the balance to be refunded to the owner. Imposition of Personal Penalties: Personal penalties were imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on several individuals involved in the incident. The penalties ranged from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 20,000, with each person being held liable for their role in the attempted export of the hides and skins. The appellants, dissatisfied with the outcome, filed appeals before the Tribunal. Defense and Arguments: The appellant's counsel argued that the circumstances did not support the allegation of attempting to export hides and skins to Bangladesh. It was contended that the truck was intercepted near Ahiran Bridge on the Canal road due to a series of events involving an overturned truck and the loading of goods onto the appellant's truck. The counsel highlighted the distance from the Bangladesh border and the impracticality of exporting hides and skins to Bangladesh due to higher availability and demand in that country. Counter-Arguments: The JDR representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the reliability of the statements given by the driver and khalasi of the truck. The statements, not retracted, were considered admissible evidence supporting the allegations of attempted export. Judgment: The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case, noting key points such as the nature of the appellants' trade, the route of the truck, and the location of the interception. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the authorities' conclusions and found merit in the appellant's arguments. It was concluded that the goods were not intended for export to Bangladesh, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
