RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal filed by Shri Rajender Kumar, the issue involved is whether the truck owned by him is liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.

(2.) SHRI A.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the truck in question has been confiscated as Misc. goods such as cardamon, medicinal powder, cartons containing spectacles frames, gas cylinders etc. were seized from the truck on 7.4.2001; that as per the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned Order the driver and the cleaner of the truck had admitted time and again that one of the partner of Bharat Transport Company had told them to load some goods for Delhi from a place ahead of Sampurnanagar; that the said partner had also appraised them that evasion of some sales tax was involved in the case. The learned Advocate mentioned that from this version, the Commissioner had given a finding that the driver and cleaner had agreed to load the goods knowingly illicit nature of the goods and made the vehicle liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. He contended that the plain reading of Section 115(2) of the Act discloses in clear terms that finding of knowledge of smuggled nature of the goods is sine qua non for confiscation of the truck; that there is no finding recorded in the impugned Order that owner or his agent had knowledge that the goods undertaken for transport were smuggled one; that as per the finding of the Commissioner that the driver was told only about the evasion of sales tax and not smuggled nature of the goods. He relied upon the decision in the case of Krisha Bahadur Rana v. Commissioner of Customs (P) Mumbai, 2000 (124) ELT 228 (Tri) and Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, 2002 (148) ELT 909 (Tri) wherein the Tribunal set aside the Order imposing personal penalty in absence of any findings in respect of knowledge of the Appellants or the driver that the goods were contravened.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that both the driver and the cleaner of the truck who were incharge of the vehicle at the material time had agreed to load the goods knowingly fully well that the evasion of sales tax is involved; that this knowledge goes to show that they were aware of the contravened nature of the goods; that accordingly, the Appellant cannot claim that the goods were loaded in his truck without the knowledge or connivance of his agent.