9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and trucks under Sections 111(d) and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Seized Goods and Trucks: The impugned order directed the confiscation of goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 14,10,000/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the absolute confiscation of two trucks under Section 115. The goods included 11,172 torches of Chinese origin, 31,944 rolls of Wonder Tape of Taiwan origin, and 12 Scotch whisky bottles, all concealed under pineapples. The appellants could not provide any documentary evidence supporting the legal possession or importation of these goods, leading to their seizure. 2. Imposition of Penalties under Section 112: Penalties were imposed on the appellants as follows: - Shri J.B. Shah: Rs. 2 lakhs - Shri Yashpal Wadhera: Rs. 2 lakhs - Shri Pramod Kumar Pahwa: Rs. 3 lakhs - Shri Mukesh Sethi: Rs. 50,000/- Appeal No. C/26/98 J.B. Shah v. CCE, New Delhi: The Commissioner linked J.B. Shah with the disposal of smuggled yarn in Bombay based on statements from Ramesh Wadhera and Yashpal Wadhera. However, no yarn was seized from the trucks, and there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Tribunal noted that the statements were retracted and found no direct involvement of J.B. Shah in the seized goods. Consequently, the penalty imposed on J.B. Shah was set aside, and his appeal was allowed. Appeal No. 33/98-NB Yashpal Wadhera v. CC: The main allegation against Yashpal Wadhera was his involvement in receiving sale proceeds of smuggled yarn from J.B. Shah. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods (torches, Wonder Tapes, and whisky bottles) were not related to Yashpal Wadhera. The penalty under Section 112(a) requires an act or omission rendering the goods liable for confiscation, which was not established in this case. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Yashpal Wadhera was set aside. Appeal No. 34/98-NB Pramod Kumar Pahwa v. CC: Pramod Kumar Pahwa, a paid employee, was found escorting the truck carrying contraband goods. He admitted to acting under instructions from his employer, Ramesh Wadhera. The Tribunal acknowledged his awareness of the smuggled nature of the goods but considered his low-paid employee status. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. Appeal No. 98/98-NB Mukesh Sethi v. CC: Mukesh Sethi was implicated for selling smuggled goods on commission for Ramesh Wadhera. Although he admitted to his involvement, he had not taken possession of the seized goods. The Tribunal found no specific act under Section 112(a) or (b) linking him to the seized goods. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on Mukesh Sethi was set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded by disposing of all four appeals in the above terms, setting aside the penalties imposed on J.B. Shah, Yashpal Wadhera, and Mukesh Sethi, while reducing the penalty on Pramod Kumar Pahwa.
|
