9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of goods under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on alleged concealment of contraband items with liril soaps. Analysis: The judgment in this case revolves around the confiscation of goods under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the alleged concealment of contraband items with liril soaps. The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 12,69,840/- with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 3.0 lac. It was observed that the liril soap cartons were being transported from Nepal Border to Punjab by the appellants' transporter's company. The Commissioner noted that the appellants were not involved in the concealment of contraband items and confiscated the goods with an option for redemption. The appellants contended that there was no concealment of contraband items with their goods, as the gunny bags were merely placed alongside the liril cartons. They argued that this arrangement did not constitute concealment, citing precedents such as the case of Mazda Chemicals v. C.C.(Prev.), Ahmedabad and Hindustan Wire Ltd. They emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest the appellants' knowledge of the contraband items being transported in the same truck hired by their C & F agent. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that Section 119 does not require intent for confiscation if goods are used to conceal smuggled items, regardless of the owner's knowledge. They maintained that confiscation could still be justified even without connivance on the part of the appellants. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the contraband items were not concealed by the liril soap cartons but were covered with them by the driver or other individuals without the knowledge of the owners. It was established that there was no nexus between the owners of the liril soap cartons and the smuggled goods. Relying on the precedent set by the Tribunal in Mazda Chemicals, the impugned order was set aside concerning the confiscation of liril soap cartons. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed, granting them consequential relief.
|
