MULJI GOKULDAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of opinion that the appeals should be allowed. A lorry carrying 50 bags of cloves was seized in its way from Paramathi to Salem. The bundles were marked as'gose'bundles (cabbage) 3 tons in the trip sheet of the lorry. The entries in the trip sheet were made by one Kalian, but without physical verification of the goods as to whether they were cabbage or any other goods. The cleaner, one Thameez, and another by name Raju were sitting in the cabin of the lorry. The goods were eventually confiscated as contraband goods which had escaped duty. The lorry was piloted by a car. On the view that the lorry was used for transporting contraband goods it was released on payment of Rs. 2000/ -. But the car was not confiscated. According to the Customs, when the lorry was taken hold of, the piloting car returned to the spot and the occupants therein, father-in-law and son-in-law who are the appellants, claimed the goods as theirs. On this basis, finding that the two appellants had complicity in the revenue offence, penalties were imposed on them a sum of Rs. 5000/- on the first appellant and a sum of Rs. 2500/- on the second appellant, under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 (2) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

(2.) RAMAPRASADA Rao J. , proceeded upon the footing that alagirisamy J. while issuing Rule Nisi had found that both the men were involved in the offence of importation of prohibited goods. So, the question, according to the learned Judge was confined to the penalties. He thought that imposition of the penalties was neither capricious nor arbitrary.