9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the appellants under the provisions of section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The truck owned by the appellants was intercepted by the Customs officers on 25-5-1996 at about 5.30 p.m. On being signalled to stop, the driver of the truck fled away from the scene after stopping the vehicle. Search of the said vehicle resulted in recovery of raw silk yarn of Chinese origin valued at Rs. 14,40,000/-. Thereafter the goods were seized on a reasonable belief that the same were smuggled. Nobody claimed these goods during adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner. 4. When the Customs officers were returning along with the seized goods and truck, another truck coming from the opposite direction tried to make a head on collision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy stood released provisionally to the appellants on cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and directed that the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by him should be adjusted against the cash security deposit. Penalties of Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed upon them. 6. Shri K. Chatterjee, ld. consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that there is virtually no evidence on record to show the involvement of the appellants with the transportation of the contraband items. He submits that the vehicle was stolen and a complaint was lodged by their driver at about 13.55 hours. In the said police complaint of the facts leading to missing of the vehicle and the circumstances under which the said vehicle was got stolen were enumerated. The circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances he prays for rejection of the appeals. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The appellants have taken a categorical stand before the Commissioner that their vehicle in question was stolen before the same was intercepted by the Customs authorities. In support of their above submission they have referred to the Police diary lodged by the driver of the truck on the date of interception itself and as per the timings shown on records, the same is prior to the time of interception. The Commissioner has neither got verified the said Police complaint from the Police station nor made any comments upon the same, but has simply dismissed the complaint as a formula adopted by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
