NAWDIP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant.

(2.) The dispute relates to a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. BR-05-5666. The jeep was found carrying contraband items viz. 157 kg. of Chinees Silkyard and 104 pieces Rainbow Camera MD 35F of Japanese make valued at Rs. 3,55,200/- on 6-9-97. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under the reasonable belief that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act as the same had been brought into India illegally from Nepal in contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 09/96-Cus., dated 22-1-96 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The jeep was also seized as being liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. On 26-9-97 an application was filed for provisional release of the jeep on behalf of one Durgesh Prasad. He stated therein that though the jeep was registered in his name, it was in the custody of the appellant Navdip Kumar, his sister's son, for last over two and half years and he had nothing to do with it. The appellant was alone re- sponsible for the maintenance and other affairs relating to the jeep. Along with other petition, filed on 21-1-1998, he enclosed a xerox copy of the affidavit sworn before the Notary Public on 20-1-1998. The application for provisional release was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Muzaffarpur, who vide his order dated 5-2-98 directed the jeep to be released on payment of cash security of Rs. 40,000/- and execution of bond for the full value of the jeep i.e. Rs. 1,75,000/- in favour of the appellant. The appellant however, did not turn up to take the vehicle nor did he produce any security or bond. The jeep in course of time, was put on auction sale as a perishable item. Earlier notices were sent by registered post to both the appellant and said Durgesh Prasad, in terms of Section 150 of the Customs Act which however, returned un-served. Notices was therefore, also displayed on the notice board in terms of Section 153(b) of the Act. Despite all this, the appellant or said Durgesh Prasad, the registered owner, did not appear. In the circumstances the jeep was auction sold to the highest bidder for Rs. 66,000/- on 7-8-2000.

(3.) Meanwhile a confiscation proceeding had been initiated with respect to the goods as well as the jeep by the competent authority namely the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Patna who by order dated 17-2-2001 held that the contraband articles had been brought into India in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and accordingly ordered for their confiscation. He also imposed personal penalty in terms of Section 122 of the Act on the persons named in the order. So far as the jeep is concerned, giving benefit of doubt, he gave the owner option to pay fine, in lieu of confiscation, as redemption fine quantified at Rs. 15,000/- as per provisions of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. Such option was to be exercised within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. Durgesh Prasad was also informed about the order.