LABH SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the Order -in -Original dated 28 -10 -2004, wherein the Commissioner has confiscated the trucks used for movement of goods, suspected to the smuggled and gave an option for redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that two trucks were seized by the Police Authorities at Nepal Border suspected to be carrying smuggled goods. When the trucks were intercepted, the drivers absconded and were never traced. The authorities from the papers available in the trucks traced the owners of the trucks and issued show -cause notice to them regarding confiscation of the truck and imposition of penalty on them. One of the owner of the truck intimated the name of his driver and his address but could not produce the driver before the authorities for recording statements. All the three appellants contested the show -cause notice before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority vide his Order -in -Original dated 30th July, 2003, absolutely confiscated the truck and imposed penalty on three appellants. On an appeal from this order, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass order according to the provisions of Section 115 in respect of absolute confiscation of the truck. The adjudicating authority in the remand order, followed the direction of the Tribunal and has confiscated the truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine by the owner of the truck, but upheld the penalty imposed by order -in -original dated 30th July, 2003 in all the three appellants. Hence the present appeals.

(3.) LD . Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the owners of the trucks in Appeal Nos. CSM -14/05 and 15/05, were not aware that the goods were of smuggled nature and in fact this can be ascertained from the fact that there was a delivery challan lying in the truck of M/s. Praba Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd. This goes to prove that the appellants were not aware that any illegal goods are being transported in the trucks. In respect of Appeal No. CSM -16/05, he submits that he is the driver of the appellant in Appeal No. CSM -15/05 and he was not aware what is being loaded in the truck. As a driver he had documents to show that the goods were consigned by M/s. Praba Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd.