9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redemption fine and the penalty imposed on them. The Department has confiscated beatul Nut of Rs.8,80,000/-. From the records, it is not clear as to whether the same has been auctioned off and value has been realized since the noticee has not forward to redeem the same. In the present case it is seen that only the present appellant has proceeded with appeals. It is found that the Department has not come with any proper evidence to the effect that owner of the vehicle was in any way involved in the alleged smuggling activities. However, the appellant cannot completely plead ignorance when his vehicle was used for transportation of the smuggled goods without any document. Considering the factual details and the financial condition of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied all the allegations leveled against him by the instant Show Cause Notice. 5. The learned Adjudicating Authority was passed the Original-in-Original No. 41-Cus/JC/MTH/2017-18 dated 19.01.2018 by which he has confiscated the seize truck bearing Registration No. UP78CN/3929 of the appellant under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs.1,15,000/- upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been held at para 24 of the OIO as under:- In respect of proposal of confiscation of the seized truck bearing registration no. UP78CN-3929 it is noticed that the noticee no. 01 and 04 have extended helping hands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t attempted transportation to the consignee at Kanpur on the direction of noticee no. 03. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 19.08.2018, the appellant preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which was dismissed by him. 7. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 03.10.2018, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 8. The Learned Advocate submits that the owner of the consignment has not come forward to claim the ownership and to claim the goods. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that any further appeal has been filed by him against the OIO. 9. Similarly, even the other noticees have not filed any appeals. In the present case only because the livelihood of the appellant is affected due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
