1990 (4) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n imposed on the appellant among others. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31-7-1985 contraband Nepali Ganja along with two Ambassador Cars, one jeep and one tractor with trailer loaded with the contraband Nepali Ganja totally valued at Rs. 3,97,400/- were recovered. The Ganja was seized under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for illegal importation and transportation in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act read with Section 11 of the Customs Act and Section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. The vehicles were seized under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as they were loaded with the contraband Ganja to be despatched to their destination. Two persons who were sitting in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 4. I have heard Shri P.K. Sengupta, Consultant for the appellant and Shri A. Chowdhury, J.D.R. for the respondent. 5. It is seen that the Additional Collector has established a link between the appellant and the offence on the ground that on 18-1-1986 the appellant claimed the tractor by means of an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalgunj. Subsequently, the appellant denied the ownership of the tractor and stated that the tractor had already been sold by him to one Shri Haridwar Singh, father of Shri Bhim Singh. The Additional Collector has also held that this contradiction is sufficient to prove that the appellant had knowledge of the offence. The learned Consultant points out that the order proceeds on the basis that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .) = 1987 (13) ECR 1265 (CEGAT-SB-A) the Special Bench of this Tribunal set aside the penalty following the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of B. Lakshmichand v. Government of India reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 322 (Madras). It has been held by the Madras High Court that if a penal action is proposed to be taken and proceedings initiated which are likely to culminate in the imposition of penalty then the authorities must be clear in mind as to whether clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 112 will apply or both, and the order must make specific reference to the provisions failing which the order of penalty is not sustainable. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X