2009 (3) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. The Applicant/Appellant filed this Application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000.00. The Applicant/Appellant is the owner of the truck which was confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of Redemption Fine and penalty was imposed on him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicant/Appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs of foreign origin valued at Rs. 3,50,000.00. At the time of interception by the Customs Officials, the owner of the goods fled away from the scene. The contention is that the Appellant is not claiming the goods in question and he has no knowledge about the action of the driver allowing the vehicle to be used for smuggled goods. The Appellant is relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ese circumstances and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kripal Singh (supra), I find no infirmity in the impugned Order whereby the truck in question was confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000.00. 6. In respect of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, I find that the Appellant is neither claiming the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X