Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (5) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... examination the officers found that the contraband goods with gunny bags were cleverly concealed under the tea chests carried in the truck. The driver confessed that he was carrying 7 bags of contraband goods. The truck was brought to the Preventive Unit of Bagdogra at about 6.30 hours on 12-8-1993 for detailed examination. As a result thereof 44 pieces of electronic musical system of foreign origin valued at over Rs. 3 lakhs were recovered from the truck and were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 260 bags of black tea of Indian origin were also seized as there were valid reason to believe that it had liability to confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act. Thus the truck was also seized for being liable to confisca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... already been adjusted which was paid as a security by the truck owner for provisional release thereof. (4) Owner of the truck Tripti Mondal has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Following persons have also been imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 :- (1) Shri S.C. Sarkar (Driver) Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only. (2) Shri Shyamal Ghosh, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only. (3) Shri Paran Ghosh, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. (4) Shri Bhavesh Singh, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only. 4. Hence these two appeals, one from Tripti Mondal and another from Paran Ghosh, before us. 5. Ld. Advocate Shri S.K. Nag, appearing for Tripti Mondal has submitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts that both these circumstances are merely suspicions without any evidence of guilt of the appellant. He submits that merely because the truck has been purchased from a person belonging to Siliguri it does not mean that the appellant Tripti Mondal was having any link with the smugglers who loaded the contraband goods in the truck. As regards the second circumstance he points out that the driver was the brother-in-law (sister s husband) of the regular driver Bachu Sen. Therefore there is no wrong that the appellant had committed in engaging the present driver inasmuch as Bachu Sen had suddenly fallen sick. He therefore submits that on virtually no evidence the Commissioner has imposed penalty on the appellant and therefore the said penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d an error of non-application of mind. He therefore prays for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on Paran Ghosh. 7. Opposing the contentions Ld. JDR reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority in so far as the imposition of penalty on both the appellants is concerned, as stated above. He has also reiterated the fine imposed by the adjudicating authority on the question of confiscation of the truck. He submits that the driver C.S. Sarkar was an agent of Tripti Mondal and therefore Tripti Mondal will be liable for the consequences including the quasi-criminal offence committed by the driver C.S. Sarkar. In that view the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty on the appellant Tripti Mondal. 8. As reg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e contraband goods have also been rightly confiscated being unclaimed. We however feel that the imposition of fine of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of confiscation of truck is on a higher side when knowledge of the truck owner is not clear on record. The circumstances referred to by the adjudicating Commissioner as also set out above during the course of the submissions of the appellant, we agree with the ld. Advocate that these circumstances do not bring out the knowledge of the appellant Tripti Mondal for loading of the contraband goods in the truck. Therefore we are of the view that the imposition of fine of Rs. 40,000/- should be reduced by 20,000/-. Therefore having regard to the overall facts and circumstances we accede to the prayer of the ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates