2001 (5) TMI 312 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of a redemption fine and personal penalty.
2. Allegations of involvement in smuggling activities and lack of import documents for goods found in the truck.
3. Dispute regarding the ownership and control of the truck and the responsibility for the actions of the driver and cleaner.
4. Legal arguments concerning the nature of the goods and burden of proof on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the confiscation of a truck and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. The truck was found with third country origin goods worth Rs. 14,67,800, leading to the confiscation and penalties. The appellant was given the option to redeem the truck on payment of a fine and a personal penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The officers of Customs apprehended the truck with the goods near a forest barrier and the driver could not produce any legal import documents. The driver stated that the goods were loaded in the truck in the presence of the owner (appellant) and another individual. The goods were alleged to be smuggled from Nepal without proper import documentation, leading to the confiscation and penalties.

3. The appellant argued that they had no involvement with the goods, as the truck was attached to another company and the driver and cleaner were appointed by that company. The appellant claimed that they should not be penalized for the actions of the other company. However, the tribunal found that the cleaner specifically mentioned the appellant's involvement in loading the goods, rejecting the appellant's defense.

4. The appellant contended that the goods were not prohibited under the Customs Act and were freely importable, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue to show that the goods were smuggled. The appellant relied on a previous tribunal decision to support their argument. However, the tribunal upheld the penalties, stating that the cleaner's statement clearly indicated the appellant's involvement in loading smuggled goods, placing the onus on the appellant to prove otherwise.

In conclusion, the tribunal rejected the appeal based on the evidence provided, particularly the cleaner's statement implicating the appellant in the smuggling activities. The burden of proof regarding the legal import of the goods was placed on the appellant, and their arguments were deemed insufficient to overturn the confiscation and penalties imposed.