9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants herein are the owners of the trucks ; Mr. Ashok Kumar Dev is the owner of the truck bearing No.BR 06G 3552 and Mrs. Meera Devi, wife of Mr.Ashok Kumar Dev, is the owner of the truck bearing No. BR 06G 3560, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma is the owner of truck No. BR 06G 3652 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh is the owner of the tuck No. BR 06G 1867. These trucks loaded with garlic of third country origin, were intercepted by the Customs on the basis of specific information on 20.03.2009 at 17.00 hrs.. The said garlic was valued at ₹ 13,17,500/- and all these trucks were totally valued at ₹ 42.00 lakhs. The said garlic of third country origin along with trucks were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,25,000/- on Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and ₹ 3,50,000/- on Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, were also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the ld. Commissioner relating to confiscation of vehicles and imposition of penalties, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld.Advocate, Shri K.P.Dey, appearing for the appeallants, (1) Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, (2) Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, (3) Shri Ashok Kumar Dev, submitted that even though the ld. Commissioner has adjudicated the addendum to show-cause notice, but the original show-cause notice dated 24.08.2009 had neither been received by them nor detailed in the adjudication order decided by the ld. Commissioner. They had cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-caution to safeguard her interest. It is the submission that in the event, she was not made a party in the original show-cause notice dated 24.08.2009, confiscation of the vehicle, is contrary to the provisions of law. The ld. Advocate submitted that since the vehicle bearing No. BR 06G 3560 belonging to her had been confiscated, she is an aggrieved person and accordingly, the present appeal is maintainable. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that there is no dispute in respect of seizure of garlic loaded with the vehicles initially transported with fake numbers and later, the name of owners and correct registration numbers were ascertained from the respective transport authorities. It is also not in dispute that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
