2005 (11) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re seized by the police from a Tata Sumo Van (Registration No. TN 04 J 0183) which was intercepted on the apprehension that it was being used for smuggling goods of foreign origin. There were five persons in the vehicle at the time of its interception and they did not include the appellant (Shri B. Sathik), owner of the vehicle. After recording statements from the occupants of the vehicle, the pol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , I find that, as rightly pointed out by Id. Counsel for the appellant, the vehicle was wrongly confiscated inasmuch as no nexus was established between its use as conveyance for the offending goods, and the appellant. The confiscation is under Section 115 of the Customs Act. In terms of sub-section 2 of this Section, any conveyance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in this case. The penalties were proposed only under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Thus, the lower authorities have concurrently found that the driver did not, by any commission or omission, render the seized (electronic) goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. In other words, it stands established that the driver had no knowledge that the goods which were liable to confiscation under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X