9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ags containing 30500 Nos. vides cassettes (Panasonic brand) valued at Rs. 42,70,000/-. Consequently the goods collectively valued at Rs. 72,70,000/- were seized along with the truck bearing registration No. RJ-27G-4433 valued at Rs. 3 lakhs. Shri Narinder Kumar, Driver in his statement recorded on 10-12-1998 deposed that he was working as driver with M/s. Auto Road Carriers having its Head Quarter at Delhi. He stated that that he reached Udaipur on 7-12-1998 along with his wife and a friend Ashok Kumar. He parked his truck at the Godown of M/s. Auto Road Carriers, Udaipur. He stated that Shri Naresh Chawla looking after the work of Udaipur Branch of the transporter told him that a consignment from another truck was to be taken to Delhi. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the goods. He stated that he arranged this to truck No. RJ-27G-4433 in the night, he also instructed Narender Kumar, Driver of the truck to park the truck at Dhaulakuan after arrival at Delhi where the consignee himself will contact him. He stated that the truck was owned by him. On further investigation it was revealed that consignor of these goods M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Hyderabad, was found to be a non-existent firm and the freight letter issued by them was also a fake one. Consequently, the proceedings were initiated. The 30500 Nos. video cassettes and 2000 Kgs. Oxytetracycline powder was misdeclared in the transport documents as Haldi powder and in fact these goods were smuggled from Nepal in contravention of the prohibition imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er noticee parties. 2. The present appeal is by Shri Naresh Chawla against above order of Commissioner of Customs. The appellant is not represented. He has sent a letter dated 2-11-2000 in which he has stated that it is not possible for him to appear either in person or through authorised representative and therefore his appeal may be decided on merits. 3. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents. The appellant in his written memo of appeal has stated that he had no knowledge of contraband goods meant for transport from Udaipur to Delhi. He has further stated that as per his knowledge, Haldi powder was loaded in the truck. He does not question the confiscation of the seized goods. He states that he was booking agent of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggled goods shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent or the person in charge of the conveyance. In the present case admittedly the appellant himself ordered for the transhipment of the smuggled goods from one truck to another. There is no explanation forthcoming from him as to the discrepancy in the transport documents as against the actual number of bags in the consignment as analysed by the adjudicating authority. In view of this therefore, I am of the view that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus cast in the aforesaid provisions of the Act that smuggled goods were being transported without his knowledge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
