9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Officer, Pallia recovered the contraband goods from Ambassador Car No. UPU 3781 while it was coming from Dhangarhi (Nepal) near Chandpur forest Kothi in which the appellant along with S/Shri Kali Charan and Om Prakash were travelling. During the course of checking of the said car, 39 Electronic Calculators and 4.95 Mts. of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were recovered from a leather bag concealed in the said car which was claimed by the said Kali Charan. On personal search of the appellant, one Seiko Wrist watch of foreign origin was also recovered. The said car was seized by the Customs Officer along with the above goods under reasonable belief that the said car belongs to the appellant and it was used by Shri Kali Charan a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran and Kailash Chand Shivhare and the contraband goods recovered, was confiscated and the penalty was also imposed on them. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant chased the matter in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, but without success except that the personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Against this Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. I have heard Shri P.N. Kaul, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Bhatia, learned SDR for the respondent. 5. Shri P.N. Kaul, learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that at the relevant time the appellant borrowed the said Ambassador car from his friend for taking his mother on pilgrimage. But due to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the time of seizure of contraband goods and the vehicle in question, the appellant had clearly stated that he was the owner of the said vehicle and this was amply corroborated by S/Shri Kali Charan, Om Prakash and Kailash Chand Shivhare in their statements which were also recorded simultaneously. The letter purporting to be issued by the Registration Authority, Agra and produced by the appellant to show that on 9-4-1978 the vehicle in question was not registered in the name of the appellant is also of no relevance. For, it is common knowledge that there is always a time gap between sale transactions and the transfer of the vehicle to the purchaser by the registering authorities. Thus, from the facts available in the present case, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not owner of the vehicle in question at the relevant time, the car is still liable to be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act because it is admitted that to the appellant that he was in-charge of the vehicle in question at the relevant time and the said Kali Charan who was travelling with him had one bag in his possession from which contraband goods were recovered. If he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time, he has no cause to complain regarding the confiscation and if he has acquired ownership of the vehicle in question during the adjudicating proceedings, his case does not improve because the fact remains that the contraband goods were recovered from the said car and the appellant was incharge of it and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
