2013 (2) TMI 88 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of red sanders wood truck - gave an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.60,000/- on each truck and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- each - Held that - As the two trucks were used for transportation of the red sanders wood which was in turn smuggled not in dispute & the drivers in their statements admitted that the trucks were used in smuggling of red sanders which has not been retracted or disowned. The red sanders wood being a prohibited item and its export is not allowed Commissioner has rightly confiscated the goods and trucks, which were being used in the smuggling prohibited items - Assessee s claim that they are not the owner of the trucks is contrary to the evidences on record. Further the ground taken by the appellants that no proceedings have been initiated against the financiers does not absolve them from the offence - confiscation of the trucks warranted - option to redemption given are also reasonable, thus no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the same is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed - against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of goods and trucks, ownership of trucks, redemption fine, penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In the case, the appellants appealed against an Order-in-Original confiscating their trucks used in smuggling red sanders wood, imposing a redemption fine of Rs.60,000 on each truck, and a penalty of Rs.10,000 under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The facts revealed that the red sanders wood was being smuggled to Nepal, intercepted by officers, and the trucks were confiscated. The appellants claimed they were not owners but financiers of the trucks, arguing no show-cause notice was issued to the financiers. The Department contended that no ownership claim was made for the seized goods and the drivers admitted to using the trucks in smuggling. The Tribunal noted the value of the smuggled goods, the use of trucks in smuggling, and upheld the confiscation as the appellants did not deny involvement. The Tribunal found the claim of not owning the trucks contradicted by evidence and upheld the redemption fine and penalty as reasonable, dismissing the appeals. The judgment highlights the importance of ownership, involvement in smuggling activities, and the imposition of fines and penalties under relevant legal provisions.

The issues involved in this judgment revolve around the confiscation of goods and trucks used in smuggling, the ownership of the trucks, the imposition of redemption fines, and penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original confiscating the trucks and imposing fines and penalties based on the involvement of the trucks in smuggling activities and the lack of denial by the appellants regarding their role. The judgment emphasizes the need for clarity on ownership, accountability for involvement in illegal activities, and the lawful imposition of fines and penalties in such cases.