2001 (2) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of seized goods and truck under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962

Confiscation of Seized Goods and Truck:
The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with Tetracycline powder and video cassettes misdeclared as Haldi powder, which were smuggled from Nepal. The truck and goods collectively valued at Rs. 72,70,000 were seized by DRI officers. The owner of the truck, Shri Naresh Chawla, claimed ignorance about the smuggled goods. However, investigations revealed discrepancies in the transport documents and the actual number of bags loaded in the truck. The Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur ordered the absolute confiscation of the seized goods and the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Naresh Chawla was also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(b) of the Act. The Commissioner dropped proceedings against other noticee parties.

Imposition of Penalty:
Shri Naresh Chawla appealed against the Commissioner's order, claiming he had no knowledge of the contraband goods and was only a booking agent for M/s. Auto Road Carriers. The appellant did not dispute the confiscation of the seized goods. The appellant's defense was that he was not aware of the actual contents of the goods and had only agreed to transport what he believed to be Haldi powder. However, the JDR for the respondents argued that the discrepancies in the number of bags loaded in the truck indicated the appellant's awareness of the smuggled goods. The JDR contended that the confiscation of the truck and the penalty imposed were justified based on the evidence provided.

In the final judgment, the appellate authority upheld the confiscation of the truck and the seized goods, along with the imposition of a penalty on Shri Naresh Chawla. The authority noted that the appellant failed to prove his lack of knowledge regarding the smuggling activities. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000 considering the circumstances of the case. The appeal was rejected, affirming the lower authority's decision with the modification of the penalty amount.