2000 (12) TMI 656 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution, Confiscation of computer parts, Imposition of penalties on employees, Lack of evidence linking appellant to smuggled goods

Restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution:
The restoration application was filed to restore an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant's Counsel was ill at the time of the hearing. The application explained the circumstances leading to the non-appearance and requested the appeal to be reinstated. The Tribunal, considering the explanation provided, decided to restore the appeal to its original position.

Confiscation of computer parts:
The appeal was directed against an Adjudication Order where computer parts valued at Rs. 9.46 lakhs were confiscated and deemed as smuggled goods. The Commissioner of Customs had imposed penalties on individuals, including the appellant, from a U.P. Road Transport Corporation. The confiscated goods were seized from a bus, and the appellant, a conductor, denied any involvement or knowledge of the smuggled goods. The appellant's Counsel argued that there was no evidence linking the appellant to the smuggled goods and cited a previous Tribunal order setting aside penalties in a similar case.

Imposition of penalties on employees:
Penalties were imposed on several employees of the Corporation, including workshop employees and bus crew members. The Tribunal noted that the findings regarding the crew's involvement were based on inference rather than concrete evidence. It was observed that the penalties imposed on the appellant and others were not sustainable due to the lack of evidence linking them to the transportation of smuggled goods. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

Lack of evidence linking appellant to smuggled goods:
The Tribunal emphasized that the penalties imposed on the appellant and others were not supported by evidence linking them to the smuggled goods. The findings implicating the crew members were based on inference rather than material evidence. As there was no concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the transportation of smuggled goods, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.