9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 apart from confiscating the said vehicle under Section 115(2) thereof with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000 each apart from imposing personal penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs each on the present appellants (among others) under Section 112(b). 2. Since the facts relating to the three appellants are common and arose from the common impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The three aforesaid vehicles were intercepted on the Amritsar-Delhi road on 23-11-1992 on the basis of intelligence report that they were carrying goods of foreign origin. Search of the vehicles conducted in the presence of two independent Panchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... era of Delhi on telephone (Telephone No. 5588687). Shri Ramesh Wadhera along with another person had told him that he (Tarsem Singh) would have to go to Khatima in U.P.; in a day along with his truck and two more tankers which were expected to arrive from Zirakpur in Patiala Dist. On 16-11-1992 two more tankers owned by Jaswinder Singh, arrived along with their drivers Sushil Kumar and Kamal respectively and on instruction from Ramesh Wadhera the number plate of one of the tankers was re-painted; that Ramesh Wadhera had told him and the other drivers that they would have to take their respective vehicles to Khatima in U.P. and that certain persons by name Kuku, Satish or Chopra Babuji would meet them near a Hotel in Khatima where certain go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Distt. Bareilly. That in the evening of 21-11-1992 Shri Surinder Singh had accompanied him with the said truck to the forest 4 kms away from Khatima; that some workers were already there and that the owner of the truck unscrewed the bolt of iron sheet behind the driver s cabin and loaded the goods in the cavity and thereafter the owner of the Truck fixed the iron sheet with nuts and bolts; that Surinder Singh, the owner had told him (Joginder Singh) that he had to take the truck to Delhi and follow Truck No. 3396 and for this job Surinder Singh would pay him Rs. 3000/- and that he (Jog Raj Singh) was to deliver the goods to the person to whom the driver of Truck No. 3396 would be delivering the goods; that Surinder Singh had also told him t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied any knowledge or concern about the contraband goods and the truck under seizure. Nothing incriminating was found from the residential premises of Shri Ramesh Wadhera on 24-11-1992. 6. On the basis of further investigations a SCN dated 19-5-1993 was issued to the drivers of the vehicle as well as to the three appellants before us alleging that they were concerned for carrying, keeping, transporting and otherwise dealing with smuggled goods and therefore liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, apart from asking them to show cause as to why the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and why the vehicles should not be confiscated under Section 115. 7. The present appellants Shri Jaswinder Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had observed that, though, Truck No. 7796 was registered in the name of Manvinder Singh, he (Manvinder Singh) being a student, he had empowered Jaswinder Singh to look after the vehicle and Manvinder Singh had no concern with the transportation activities. After considering the statements given by Tarsem Singh and the other two drivers, namely, Sushil Kumar and Jog Raj, giving detailed narration of facts with specific details relating to the operation of smuggling, it was clear that Shri Jaswinder Singh, Ramesh Wadhera, Vinay Chopra, Ashok, Kuku, Satish and Surinder Singh were really in the know of the things mentioned therein. As regards the retractions subsequently made by the three drivers, the adjudicating officer took the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112 had, therefore, not been satisfied. He submitted that it was a settled principle that the onus is on the Department to show that any act of omission or commission attracting penalty was deliberate and there was mens rea and if two constructions are possible, the one in favour of the subject should be adopted. He, therefore, pleaded for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on appellants. 10. The ld. DR submitted that excepting appellant Jaswinder Singh, who had sent a written reply to the SCN, none of the other noticees, had replied to the notices nor responded to the summons issued to them. They did not also attend the personal hearing, the notices for which had been issued. He submitted that the statements given by the dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
