2001 (6) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of truck and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
2. Allegation of smuggling goods of 3rd Country origin.
3. Connection of the owner with the goods in question.
4. Legal provisions under the Customs Act regarding confiscation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order confiscating the appellant's truck and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The truck was intercepted carrying goods of 3rd Country origin, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent order for confiscation.

2. The appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove his knowledge or involvement in smuggling goods of 3rd Country origin from Nepal to India. The driver, who was employed by the appellant, did not implicate him in his statement. The appellant contended that the driver was unaware of the concealed goods in the truck, thus challenging the confiscation.

3. The Judge noted that the driver's initial statement did not implicate the appellant, and there was no evidence connecting the appellant to the goods found in the truck. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was deemed unsustainable and set aside.

4. Referring to legal precedents, the Judge upheld the confiscation of the truck as the goods of 3rd Country origin were brought from Nepal to India, and the driver was aware of these goods. Citing the case law of Kripal Singh v. Collector of Customs, the Judge emphasized that when contraband goods are found in a vehicle and the owner fails to prove lack of knowledge or connivance, confiscation is justified. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- considering the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act while upholding the confiscation of the truck with a reduced redemption fine. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in such cases.