9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) JUDGEMENT Four trailers belonging to the appellant were confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), but appellants were given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rs. 1,25,000/- per trailer) under Section 125 of the Act on the ground that these trailers were used for transportation of 'Muriate of Potash' which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to export. It was not possible to identify whether the goods were Muriate of Potash or Bentonite Powder on visual examination. Under the above circumstances, the goods at the time of its transportation could not be held to be smuggled goods and the trailers confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In terms of para 7(k) of Notification No. 4/2009-Cus (NT) dated 19.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of the goods. This submission leads to a conclusion that he did not have the knowledge of the goods being transported which becomes a rebuttable submission only because it is necessary for the department to rebut to show that he had knowledge. In this case, the Commissioner has taken a view that the appellant has to prove beyond doubt that they had no knowledge. This term is used only whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r driver or the person in-charge of the conveyance. It is not the case of the department that driver or agent or person in-charge of the vehicle had knowledge nor such ground has been taken in the show-cause notice nor any statement of driver or agent or the person in-charge of the vehicle has been recorded. In such a situation, in my opinion, it is not necessary for the appellant to prove that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and apparently, the obvious conclusion is that in the absence of any tampering of the seals, the customs officers had allowed the impugned cargo for export. Since the consignments were loaded into the containers under the supervision of the customs officers, the finding of the Commissioner that owner of the conveyance has not proved beyond doubt that he had no knowledge of the goods being transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
