Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Arvind Tomar And Shri Rajveer Singh vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 5 July, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member
1. Appellants filed these two appels against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.1.98, the truck which is registered in the name of appellants was intercepted by the Customs authority and the goods valued at Rs. 54,85,000/- of third Country origin was recovered from the truck. Show case notice as issued to the appellants for confiscation of the truck as well as imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
2. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, confiscated the goods in question and also confiscated the truck with the option to the appellants to redeem the truck on payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant.
3. Learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence to show that appellants were concerned with the smuggled goods. The appellants are not claiming the gods. The appellants are poor persons and they were owner of the truck and they employed one Shri Radhey Mohan as truck driver. The contention of the learned Counsel is that, if, anything is done, that is by the driver of the truck. She further pleads, that appellants are poor and they are not in a position to pay the amount of redemption fine.
4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the finding of the lower authorities.
5. After going through the appeal papers, we find that the goods were recovered from the truck and no investigation was conducted of Shri Radhey Mohan, the driver of the truck. There is no evidence on record which implicates the present appellants. Therefore, the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs act imposed on the appellants is not sustainable, hence set aside.
6. In respect of the truck, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kripal Singh Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna, reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) held that in case the appellants had failed to prove that the truck is used for transporting the contraband goods without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant or his agent, the truck is liable for confiscation. In the present case, the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that truck has been used for transporting the goods in question without the knowledge or connivance of their agent. Therefore, the impugned order in respect of the confiscation of the truck is upheld. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine for the release of the truck is reduced to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.