9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of seized ball bearings and penalties imposed on various individuals. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata dealt with multiple appeals arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner, involving the confiscation of seized ball bearings and penalties imposed on several individuals totaling Rs. 1,19,82,730. The facts of the case revolved around the detention and seizure of a truck containing ball bearings of foreign origin, allegedly being diverted to Delhi from Nepal. Subsequent investigations led to more seizures and penalties imposed on different persons connected to the transportation. The legal representatives of the appellants argued that there was no direct connection between the appellants and the seized ball bearings. They contended that the appellants were merely transporters and were not aware of the illegal nature of the goods being transported. The representatives challenged the penalties imposed, citing lack of evidence to prove the appellants' involvement in smuggling activities or knowledge of the goods' illicit nature. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and referred to previous judgments to analyze the case. They highlighted the importance of proving knowledge of the smuggled nature of goods for imposing penalties. The Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, setting aside the penalties as the Commissioner failed to provide affirmative evidence linking the appellants to the smuggling activities. The Tribunal also ruled that separate penalties on certain individuals, such as the transporter and the father of the owner, were not justified based on the lack of substantial evidence. Regarding the confiscation of jute caddies and trucks, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to justify confiscation, especially when no contraband was found in some of the vehicles. Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered the release of the confiscated truck and jute caddies, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. It was clarified that no orders were passed regarding the ownership of the ball bearings as no party claimed ownership, and the appellants withdrew their prayer for their release.
|
