2024 (3) TMI 763 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of seized truck u/s 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - levy of penalty - owner of the consignment has not come forward to claim the ownership and to claim the goods - Department has not adduced any corroborative evidence to the effect that the owner of the vehicle (the present appellant) was directly or indirectly involved in the alleged smuggling activities - HELD THAT - It is found that after the goods have been seized, the other noticees have not proceeded further against the confiscation, redemption fine and the penalty imposed on them. The Department has confiscated beatul Nut of Rs.8,80,000/-. From the records, it is not clear as to whether the same has been auctioned off and value has been realized since the noticee has not forward to redeem the same. In the present case it is seen that only the present appellant has proceeded with appeals. It is found that the Department has not come with any proper evidence to the effect that owner of the vehicle was in any way involved in the alleged smuggling activities. However, the appellant cannot completely plead ignorance when his vehicle was used for transportation of the smuggled goods without any document. Considering the factual details and the financial condition of the appellant, the redemption fine reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved: Seizure and confiscation of a commercial vehicle loaded with seized goods, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

Seizure and Confiscation of Vehicle:
The appellant, owner of a seized commercial vehicle, claimed that the truck was loaded with seized goods by the driver without his knowledge. The vehicle was intercepted and seized by Customs. The appellant filed a petition for release, which was provisionally granted on depositing cash security and executing a bond. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposition of penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the vehicle with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal noted involvement of multiple parties in the transportation of illegally imported goods but found lack of direct evidence implicating the vehicle owner in smuggling activities. However, considering the use of the vehicle without proper documentation, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced due to the appellant's financial condition.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, arguing lack of evidence linking him directly or indirectly to smuggling activities. The Department claimed the owner of the vehicle was responsible for the driver's actions. After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found insufficient proof of the owner's direct involvement in smuggling but noted the responsibility of the owner for the actions of the driver. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced based on the appellant's financial situation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was made considering the lack of direct evidence implicating the owner in smuggling activities, while acknowledging the owner's responsibility for the use of the vehicle in transporting seized goods. The appellant was granted relief based on the factual details and financial condition presented during the proceedings.