AHMEDABAD ABDUL AZIZ SHAIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated December 13, 1989 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay in appeal No. C/552/88-Bom. produced at annexure D to the petition. Truck bearing No. GRR-3160 was owned by the petitioner. The said truck was intercepted by police on April 29,1987 at Veraval where it was lying parked in abandoned condition. On search of the truck the police found contraband goods valued at Rs. 2,29,77,030/- (Rupees two crores twenty nine lakhs seventy seven thousand and thirty only) concealed along with 150 bags of dry fish powder. The contraband goods were wrist watches, watch cells and micro computers components etc. The police seized the contraband articles and also seized truck. It was found by the Customs department that the petitioner had permitted the truck to be used for transport of contraband goods and he was also involved in the said incident. Hence a show cause notice dated October 15,1987 was served upon him to remain present before the authority concerned. In the adjudication proceedings which followed pursuant to show cause notice, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Ahmedabad, held that the truck was liable to be confiscated and ordered absolute confiscation. The Collector further held that the petitioner was concerned with the said activity and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh as provided under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) . The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before CEGAT. The CEG AT dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, while dismissing the appeal, it modified the order as regards personal penalty and as regard absolute confiscation of the truck. The Tribunal passed the final order as follows:

(3.) . On January 12, 1990, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petition was admitted on January 15, 1990 by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: G.T. Nanavati, J. as he then was and J.U. Mehta, J.). Initially this court granted ad interim relief and restrained the respondents from recovering the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the court passed interim order as follows: "Interim stay of operation of the order passed by the Tribunal at anncxure 'D' to the petition in so far as it pertains to imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50.000/- on the condition that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 10.000/- and security of immovable property to the tune of Rs. 40.000/- to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. It is stated by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the respondent and therefore if that fact is corrcctd then the authority will have to release the truck on the petitioner depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 25.000/-"