9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on 16-4-1989 from truck No. RRF 6285 at Hanuman Ganj, Allahabad, confiscated the truck with option to redeem and imposed penalties on Sh. Satya Narain Modi and two others. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise, Allahabad intercepted the truck No. RRF 6285 on 16-4-1989 and recovered 4752 Kgs. of polyester texturised yarn of foreign origin contained in 132 gunny bags, concealed under bundles of old rejected ply-wood. Besides 24 dibbies of Chinese balms were also recovered which were owned by Shri Satya Narain Modi and were stated to have been purchased by him from Siliguri. Indian currency of Rs. 23,500/- was also recovered from him. The occupants of the truck were S/Shri Satya Nar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occupants of the truck denied knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods loaded in the truck and submitted that the driver agreed to book only ply-wood for Sh. Daljit Chowdhary Proprietor of M/s. Haryana Gauhati Transport Company and the loading was done by the labourers of Daljit Chowdhary. They also submitted that the truck in question belonged to Anil Kumar Modi, cousin of Satya Narain Modi and that Satya Narain Modi had only gone to Siliguri in his cousin s truck to survey the routes for the purpose of plying his own truck. They also submitted that the statements had been recorded from them under duress. The adjudicating authority rejected the defence of the appellants and passed the impugned order of confiscation of goods and imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 in the night, Daljit Chaudhary came to me along with another person, whom I did not know and told me to get the goods loaded from that person. Sh. Daljit Chaudhary agreed to pay Rs. 32,000/- although the transportation charges from Siliguri to Ahmedabad are Rs. 12,000/- because I knew that foreign goods were to be transported by me and, therefore, the higher amount was settled. On 14-4-1989, I along with the abovesaid persons accompanied that person at about 8 in the night and reached at a place in a jungle about 50 Kms. from Siliguri beyond Bagdogra. At about 11 in the night, foreign yarn was brought there in 11 bullock carts. 132 bags of foreign yarn were loaded in truck No. 6285 in my presence, which were covered from all sides by 156 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and remaining Rs. 8500/- were the transportation charges for carrying mustard oil. During the course of the search of my truck 24 Dibbies of China balm valued at Rs. 48/- were also recovered. The same had been purchased by me from Siliguri but I have no document for that ............. I have no duty paying document, bill, voucher etc. regarding 132 bags of polyester yarn weighing 4652 kgs. valued at Rs. 95.0400/- and 24 dibbies of China blam ...... This statement was therefore, got written from Shri MadanGopal, s/o Shri......resident of 44, Purana ...... Allahabad. Thereafter it was read to me. This is my own statement, which has been given by me without any coercion and I am statisfied". The contention of the learned Counsel that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scertain this fact. 5. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this matter. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shantilal Mehta v. Union of India reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1715 cited by the learned Counsel to support his argument that there must be reasonable belief that the goods in dispute are smuggled goods, is distinguishable as in that case, though the siezed goods viz. ornaments and diamonds were not accounted for by the petitioner who is a Jeweller, there was nothing to suggest the foreign origin of the goods or their illegal importation into India from Nepal or elsewhere while in the present case, the reasonable belief stems from the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Satya Narain Modi has clearly stated that he was sitting in the truck in the capacity of its owner, who is the son of his maternal uncle. Further, he has not come up with any claim to the truck before the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, we see nothing wrong in the Department having treated Sh. Satya Narain Modi as the representative of Shri Anil Kumar Modi and no infirmity in the order of confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) and the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradeep and Company v. Collector of Customs reported in AIR 1973 Calcutta 131 wherein the person incharge of the car seized for carrying smuggled goods was the driver who could not be said to be the agent of the owner, is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
