Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri. Gautam Verma vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev), ... on 8 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. C/75367/2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 72/CUS(A)/GHY/14 dated 22.12.14 passed by the Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & S. Tax, (Appeals), Guwahati.
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI P. K. CHAUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri. Gautam Verma.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Shillong
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri D. Sahu, Advocate, for the appellant Shri S. N. Mitra, AC (AR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble P. K. Chaudhary, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 08.11.16 Date of Pronouncement:16.12.16 ORDER No.FO/A/76341/16 Per Shri P. K. Chaudhary.
The appellant filed this appeal against confiscation of truck and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 500,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act 1962.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.2012 DRI officers and BSF, Agartala seized a truck bearing Registration No. NL-01K-3877 en route to Agartala near Bagbassa- Dharmanagar, Tri-junction loaded with phensedyl cough linctus concealed in the vacant surface area of M.S. Iron and wire rods. The goods and truck were seized on the ground for transportation of the smuggling of the goods to Bangaladesh, illegally. For proper appreciation of the case, the statement of Shri Sanjay Derkata, the driver of the seized truck is reproduced below:-
4. Statement was taken from Shri Sanjay Derkata, the driver of the seized truck and in his statement interalia stated that initially the empty truck was stranded on NH-6 at Kharagpur but later on as per the direction of Shri Gautam Verma, the brother of the truck owners, namely Smt Malti Devi Verma and Smt Preeti Verma directed him on 07.11.2012 to place the vehicle near Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Gokulpur, Dist; Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal on 08.11.2012 and accompanied him upto that place. After loading of 17 tons of M.S. Wire Rod along with the consignment Note No. 0154 dated 09.11.2012 of Ganapati Roadways, he left for Chamril with the truck as pe the direction of Shri Gautom Verma. On reaching Chamril, one 407 truck parked besides his vehicle and shifted some cartons with the help of some local laborers which were kept in the surface of each coil bundle and after which he covered the truck with the help of the co-driver. After completion of the work, Shri Gautom Verma paid his Rs. 25,000/-. But due to some personal problem he halted there upto 15.11.2012 and finally started for Agartala on 16.11.2012. They had crossed the Chagalia MV Check Gate on 19.11.2012 and Churaibari check post on 23.11.2012 and finally reached Dharmanagar Tri-junction on NH-44 on 24.11.2012 where the BSF seized the vehicle.
5. No body came forward to claim the ownership of the Phensedyl Cough Linctus. Thus, it is clearly proved that the same are not bonafide trade goods. The appellant had not placed any evidence to establish that he had no knowledge of the loading of the seized goods. Section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides the conveyance used as the means for transportation of smuggling of any goods is liable to confiscation unless the owner of the conveyance proves that the conveyance was used as a means of transportation in the smuggling of any goods without his knowledge or connivance of his agent and the person in charge of the conveyance. In the present case, it is revealed from the statement of the driver, that the goods are loaded upon the direction of the appellant. So, confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty is justified. However. I agree with the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the quantum of fine and penalty is excessive as the value of the Phensedyl Cough Linctus is Rs. 7,20,000/- .
6. In view of the above discussions, the confiscation of truck is upheld and redemption fine and penalty are reduced to Rs. 1, 00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. The impugned order is modified accordingly. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the open court.) (P. K. Chaudhary) Member (Judicial) T.K 3 Appeal No. C/75367/2015