Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Shri Sunil Kumar And Others vs Cc, Patna on 26 July, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. All the four appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna. Vide the said order he has confiscated 454 bags of Indian paddy totally valued at Rs.1,73,995/- (rupees one lakh seventy three thousand nine hundred and ninty five) with option to the owner of the same to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) on the findings that the same was attempted to be exported. Two trucks used for transportation of the said paddy have also been confiscated with option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand). each. Apart from that personal penalties of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), Rs. 100/- (rupees one hundred) and Rs.200/- (rupees two hundred) have been imposed upon the various appellants.
2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly I have heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld.SDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner.
3. According to the facts on record it is seen that on 25.2.99, Preventive Officers of Customs found two loaded trucks lying abandoned at no-man's land near Sonbarsa border. Enquiries conducted by them as regards driver and khalasi of the truck did not yield any results. The trucks were brought to the Customs House and on checking were found to be loaded with bags of paddy. The same were seized by the customs officers on the reasonable belief that the paddy in question was meant for exportation.
4. During post-seizure investigations, Shri Ram Sewak Sah claimed the ownership of the seized bags of paddy and submitted that the trucks have been illegally seized inasmuch as the same were not found on no-man's land, but were intercepted at Mohanpur Bamwaria Chowlk at outskirts of Sitamari town. Further inasmuch as the papers found from the trucks showd the name of the purchaser of paddy as that of M/s. Sree Shakit Rice Mill, Shri Sunil Kumar, partner of the said mill was also interrogated who denied his involvement in the purchase of the said paddy. Md. Ekramul Haqque appeared as power of attorney holder of Smt. Harbans Kaur is whose name truck no.WB-25/2942 was registered. Smt. Lady Khaton is the regd. owner of the second truck bearing no.BR-60D/5622G.
5. I find that the paddy in question has been confiscated and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the trucks were intercepted along with loaded paddy when same were parked at no-man's land. On the other hand the appellants have claimed that the trucks were intercepted at Mohanpur Bamwaria Chowlk. In support of their claim they have produced the affidavits of the various persons, who claimed to be witnesses in the interception of the truck and subsequent seizure. The said plea of the appellant Shri Ram Sewak Sha has been discarded by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the affidavit's have been filed after a period of about two months from the date of interception. However, I feel that the controversy over the place of interception can be made the basis for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly by doing so, I set aside the impugned order in so far as the same relates to the present four appeals and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
Pronounced in the court.