9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. The case pertains to a seizure of N.D.P. Ganja (Nepali) weighing 310 kgs. valued at Rs. 93,000/- on 9-7-1980 at Musharighari by the Customs Officers of Muzaffarpur. This Ganja was found being transported in the above-said jeep bearing No. BRL 2654 belonging to the appellant. The appellant s contention was that he was not aware of the goods which are contraband in nature, and he did not know about the goods being carried in his vehicle. 3. The learned Advocate, Shri Mukhopadhyay contended that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was in any way involved in the act of smuggling. He also contended that the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated. He also submitted that the vehicle wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant could not have confessed about that offence on a previous date i.e., 24-3-1980. Even if it is assumed that the learned Additional Collector was referring to any statement taken after the date of seizure, such a statement was not mentioned in the show cause notice. Without mentioning the same in the show cause notice, it could not be relied upon. Therefore, the reason for imposing penalty on the appellant stating that he was found in the smuggling is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 6. The second question is, whether the vehicle is liable for confiscation and if so, whether the same could have been confiscated on the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Special Bench in a case reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 338. But the learned departmental representative contended that the decision of the Special Bench was in the context of a case under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. But the Tribunal had applied the principles of that case in the Customs case. 7. In a later decision the Special Bench of the Tribunal had taken a similar view even in a case under the Customs Act, 1962. That decision is reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) = 1990 (28) ECR 423. While dealing with Section 125 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal at Paras 12 and 13 held as follows: The section pre-supposes the existence of the goods. It is only when the goods are available that they can be confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
