9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tta which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta vide his O/A No. Prev./Cus./12-13/2000 dated 31-3-2000. 2. As the issue falls in a short compass, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties, after dispensing with predeposit of the said redemption fine. 3. The matrix of the case is that the said vehicle which is jointly owned by the appellants, has been used as a taxi. Shri Goutom Paramanik was the driver of the vehicle. On 16-10-1996 when the driver was at the taxi stand of Krishnagar, three unknown persons by name S/Shri Bachhu Singh, Pintu Lodh and Dulal Dey hired the said taxi for Howrah Station. The said passengers boarded the taxi and their luggage was kept in the dicky. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to confiscation under the Customs Act. He, therefore, upheld the confiscation of the said vehicle. However, he set aside the order of imposition of penalty on the appellants on the ground that the Department has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the owners of the vehicle had prior knowledge about smuggling of the said silk yarn. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal. 5. Shri M.N. Basu, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the silk yarn in question is of smuggled nature. However, he clarifies that the appellants are not claiming the goods which stand confiscated. Learned Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also refers to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manjeet Singh v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 153 (Tribunal-Del.) wherein order of confiscation of truck and imposition of penalties on the driver and owner was set aside on the ground that there was no indication that the owners and drivers of the truck had knowledge or belief that the goods carried by the truck were smuggled goods. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator v. Sharad Ramchandra Kale reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that confiscation of truck was not sustainable when the owner of the truck had no knowledge that the truck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gue. I am, therefore, convinced that the driver had no knowledge about the presence of the smuggled goods in the luggage of the passengers. There is also no evidence on record to prove the prior knowledge on the part of the owners regarding transportation of the smuggled goods in their vehicle. As such, confiscation of the vehicle on that ground is not justified. I am, therefore, of the view that the confiscation of the vehicle is not warranted and the order in this regard is liable to be set aside. The ld. JDR has referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Girija Shankar Singh v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna. I find that the facts of both the cases are distinguishable and as such the observations contained therein cannot hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
