1999 (10) TMI 532 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on three appellants.
- Appellant 1 and 2's defense as innocent passengers in the truck with seized contraband.
- Appellant 3's penalty as the registered owner of the truck used for transporting contraband.
- Confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Imposition of Penalties:
The appellants were aggrieved by penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appellants 1 and 2, Shri Jitendra Nath Saha and Manwarul Haque, claimed innocence, stating they were merely passengers in the truck where contraband was found. The appellants argued they had no connection to the seized items, relying on a legal precedent where a co-traveler with a main accused was not held liable for penalties. The tribunal found no evidence linking appellants 1 and 2 to the contraband, thus setting aside the penalties imposed on them.

Appellant 3's Penalty:
Appellant 3, Mrs. Manju Goba, faced penalties as the registered owner of the truck used for transporting contraband. Her defense highlighted that although the truck was registered in her name, it was under a hire-purchase agreement with another individual. She argued that as the full payment was pending, she was not the actual owner of the truck at the time of the incident. The tribunal agreed, noting that Mrs. Goba had no involvement in the transportation of contraband, leading to the setting aside of the penalties imposed on her.

Confiscation of the Truck:
The truck used for transporting the contraband was subject to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite Mrs. Goba being the registered owner, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000 due to her partial ownership and payment. The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the truck, emphasizing that the involvement of the owner's agent or driver in illegal activities justified the confiscation. The judgment disposed of all three appeals, modifying the impugned order accordingly.