9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s challenge the Order-in-Original No. 20/CC/ADJ/99, dated 28-9-1999 of Commissioner of Customs, Patna vide which, besides confiscating 520 Kgs. of Silk Yarn valued at Rs. 13,00,000/-, confiscated truck No. WB-81-6276 under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 but allowed redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each on Shri Masroor Huss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r having been brought into India from Nepal in contravention of Notification No. 9/96, dated 22-1-1996 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act and why the said truck should not be confiscated under Section 115(2) ibid and why penalty should not be imposed on each one of them under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 for being concerned in the smuggling of the contraband goods in question. All f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t him. As regards the other three appellants, the learned Advocate argues that they had no knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods. He, therefore, argues that there is no warrant to order confiscation of the truck and similarly there is no justification to impose penalties on the appellants. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of the impugned goods as the smuggled goods are duly concealed. On a careful perusal of the record, I do not find any evidence to suggest that the driver had any knowledge about the contents of the packages loaded in the truck and that the same were smuggled into the country. In the absence of such an evidence, it is highly improper to impose penalty on the driver Shri Md. Masroor Hussain. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
