9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti More, Jalpaiguri in which it was mentioned that wastage paper full truck load valued at Rs. 1675/- at the rate of 0.50 per kg. was consigned to M/s. Nayak Paper Industries (P) Ltd., Mamari, Burdwan. Except this challan, the driver failed to produce any valid document for the goods which were loaded in the truck. 1.2 On examination of the goods, it was found that some contraband goods were kept concealed beneath the waste paper bundles. The contraband goods are as follows: 1500 pcs. two-cell torches, 45 pcs. Emergency light, 34560 pcs. pencils, 300 kgs. China Silk Yarn, 8000 pcs. Mobuchi Motors and 18.700 kgs.Gentamycin chemicals, totally valued at Rs. 14,39,350/- 1.3 A show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority to the following effect : The driver of the truck Sri Surendra Singh in his voluntary statement under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as interrogatory statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has categorically stated that the cartoon containing the foreign origin goods was loaded in the godown of one Sri Moti has not been brought out as a charge in the show cause notice. The show-cause notice says, according to the ld. Advocate, that only the waste papers were loaded in the presence of the driver. Nowhere there is a mention that the contraband goods were admitted by the driver to have been loaded in the truck. He, therefore, submits that the confiscation of the truck is not warranted as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. JDR that when the loading of the vehicle was done, it appears from the statements, as given in the show-cause notice, of the driver that he was under the impression that only waste paper was being loaded. The contraband goods valued at Rs. 16 1akhs have been also recovered from the truck. It is not merely the statement of the driver which is relevant for consideration of the present case. The main fact is the identity of the consignor which either the appellant or her driver is not able to bring forth on record. I also notice, as rightly pointed out by the adjudicating authority, that the driver, Shri Surendra Singh has not even cared to reply to the show-cause notice. The driver an employee, of the appellant herein, should have been pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
