9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed against the Order-in-Original dated 18-10-2004, wherein two trucks were confiscated and the appellant was given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.20 lakh (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) and penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) was imposed on the Proprietor of M/s. Rishab Road Carrier i.e. the owner of the trucks in question. 2. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed penalty on the Proprietor of M/s. Rishab Road Carrier. Hence this appeal. 3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that when the trucks were searched, contraband goods were found in the tracks. It is not in dispute that the drivers of the trucks absconded the place and they were never produced by the transport company in spite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oaded by the drivers on the way. In the absence of any direct evidence indicating the knowledge of the contraband goods in the trucks, to my mind the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the current appellant before me, is not sustainable. In view of this, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by his agents. But at the same time, he cannot be allowed to say that the actions of his agents do not bind him. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of Confiscation of the trucks in question. The redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,000.00 (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) imposed on the trucks seems to be on the higher side an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
