9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 40,000.00, 40,000.00 and 50,000.00 respectively on them under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Jitendra Nath Saha and Manwarul Haque, Shri K. Chatterjee learned Consultant submits that Shri Jitendra Nath Saha is dealing in jute products and on 2-1-1996 when he was going to take a holy plunge in the Ganges river along with his friend, Manwarul Haque, another appellant herein, he took a lift in the truck in question along with his friend, as his friend was known to the driver of the said truck. The said truck was subsequently, intercepted by the Customs Officers and silk yarn was recovered from the same. In the statement recorded on the spot from the driver of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect that the appellants were only passengers in the said truck and were not at all connected with the seized items. In this connection, he also relies upon the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. Rahit Kumar reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 57 (P H), which is to the effect that the co-accused is not liable to penalty merely because he was travelling with the main accused who was found to be in conscious possession of the contraband gold, even though the co-accused may be a related person to the main accused. He also submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the co-accused in the instant case and as such, he submits that the two appeals of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same. As such, she cannot deny her responsibility for the illegal activities of the truck. He also submits that the appellant, Mrs. Goba had to ask for the provisional release because the truck in question had not been transferred in the name of Shri Abu Taher by that point of time and she was still registered owner. Ld. Advocate also contends that the confiscation of the truck with an option to the appellant, Mrs. Goba to get the same released by paying the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- is not justified inasmuch as she was not having any knowledge about the said truck being used for transporting the contraband items. 5. Shri R.K. Roy, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Revenue draws my attention to the reasoning of the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d tooth paste, for connecting them with the Silk Yarn seized by the Department, does not convince me at all. I fail to understand as to how a packet of cards found in the pocket of the first appellant can connect the first appellant with the seized items. There is not even an iota of evidence against the first appellant. As such, I do not find any justification in imposing penalty on him and accordingly set aside the impugned Order relating to the appellant, Shri Jitendra Nath Saha. 8. As regards the personal penalty imposed on Manwarul Haque, I set aside the same for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph while dealing with the case of the first appellant, Shri Jitendra Nath Saha. 9. As regards the imposition of personal penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
