9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truck from where the goods were seized has been confiscated with redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the Maruti Van allegedly being used for piloting the said truck has been confiscated with redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Personal penalties as shown below have been imposed upon various appellants. (a) Anil Kumar - Rs. 25,000/- (b) Ashoke Kumar - Rs. 15,000/- (c) &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame direction was signalled to stop and three persons were found occupying the same. The three persons were interrogated by the officers and their statements were recorded for which they admitted that they were escorting the truck which was intercepted by the officers. They also disclosed that they had been employed by one Shri Prem Nath Prasad, who is the owner of the goods found in the said truck. It was further stated by them that the truck in question belongs to Shri Dinesh Kumar and the Maruti van in which they were travelling belongs to Vinod Kumar. All the three persons i.e. Prem Nath Prasad, Dinesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar are real brothers and staying in the same house. 5.3 On the basis of disclosure made by these persons the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Maruti van. The case made out against them is that the said Maruti van was piloting the truck from where the contraband has been recovered. He draws my attention to the show cause notice which is to the effect that the driver and khalasi of the truck ran away. He submits that in case the Maruti van was piloting the truck it should have been intercepted before the interception of the truck. Whereas the narration of facts in the show cause notice shows that the car came after about sometime. He submits that apart from the statements of these three persons there is nothing on record to connect them with the seized contraband. These statements, submits the Ld. Consultant are involuntary statements and are open to doubt. Firstly the intercept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maruti van he submits that Maruti van was not being used in any illegal purposes and as such its confiscation was not warranted. Nothing has been recovered from the said Maruti van. 6.4 As regards the confiscation of the truck he submits that the same was used for carrying smuggled items without the knowledge of the owner of the same and as such its confiscation is not justified. In any case the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is very heavy and should be reduced. 7. Countering the arguments Shri T. P. Kumar, Ld. SDR submits that a detailed Order has been passed by the Commissioner who has rightly placed strong reliance on the spot statements of the three occupants of the car. He submits that the said statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the knowledge of driver and khalasi the provisions of section 115 of the Customs Act are attracted. As regards the Maruti van, the same is also liable to confiscation having been used for escorting the truck in which the contraband was being used. 8. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the impugned Orders. As regards the imposition of penalty on the occupants of the car I find that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statements given by them. There are two set of statements given by these persons, one immediately at the time of interception and the second interrogatory statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein the appellants have again reiterated the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Rs. 5,000/- 9. As regards the penalties on the other three appellants I find that the entire case against them is based upon the statements of the three persons sitting in the Maruti van at the time of interception. It is a fact that all the three persons have implicated these three brothers i.e. Prem Nath Prasad, Vinod Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. Nevertheless to penalise these persons on the basis of the statements of other persons is not justified. The statements of Anil Kumar, Ashoke Tiwary and Ashoke Kumar are in the nature of statement of co-accused and require independent corroboration in material particulars. The statement of the co-accused might raise a grave doubt against these persons, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
