2005 (11) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the statement of the driver Shri Iliyas Miyan cannot be a substantive piece of evidence as he was one of the co-accused in the case and penalty has been imposed on him. It is settled law that statement of co-accused cannot be used without corroborating the evidence. In this case, I find that the evidence which has been seized by the Department when they intercepted the vehicle in the form of registration certificate and other documents of the vehicle which were produced before me directly show that the ownership of the vehicle is with somebody else other than the current appellant. On the face of it, the appellant should not be saddled with any penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act. Thus, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) des .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... intercepted by the Customs officers. She also submits that the documents relating to the ownership of the vehicle were produced, when the goods were seized with the car, which categorically show that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle but somebody else was owner of the vehicle. She submits that in respect of the definition of owner under Motor Vehicle Act, the current appellant will not become the owner. She also submits that imposition of penalty based only on the statement of the co-accused is contrary to the settled law. 4. Learned DR on the other hand submits that the statement of the driver very clearly states that the current appellant in fact, was involved in the whole exercise of bringing the contraband. Learned DR furth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 112(a) of the Act. It is vehemently argued by the learned DR that appellant would fall under Section 112(b) because he is in any way concerned in carrying the contraband goods. I find that the contraband goods were never physically found on the appellant and vehicle in which the contraband was found was not owned by the appellant. Overwhelming evidence in respect of registration certificate issued by the transport authorities and insurance companies and other documents which were seized in the vehicle, point directly to somebody else as owner and not to the current appellant. I also find that definition of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover the current appellant as vehicle was not registered in his name. Further, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X