ANIL KUMAR BAJPAYEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that the Customs official should try to mislead the court and to hide behind a document which is no more than a procedural formality. The truck of the petitioner was seized in January, 1999. while carrying a consignment of betel nuts which were of third country origin. The seizure led to a confiscation proceeding and on 3.5.2001 an order was passed for the confiscation of the smuggled betel nuts alongwith the vehicle carrying it, i.e., truck of the petitioner bearing registration no.M.I.F. 2123. However, in the order of confiscation with regard to the truck an option was given to its owner, the petitioner, to have it released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/ - apart from another sum of Rs. 5,000/ - by way of personal penalty. The petitioner took the matter in appeal. The appellate authority upheld the order of confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/ -.

(2.) THE petitioner deposited the redemption fine and the amount of personal penalty on 3.7.2001 and 7.8.2001 respectively. On making payment of the fine and penalty, steps were taken forthe release of the truck in his favour. As a first step, the petitioner was required to sign a receipt regarding the delivery of the truck at the office situate in the Central Revenue Building. The petitioner signed the delivery reqeipt on 1.11.2001 stating that he had received the truck no. M.I.F. 2123 aiongwith its accessories in good condition from Shri R.R. Sinha, Inspector, T.C. Unit, Custom ...... Thereafter when the petitioner went to take away his truck which was kept in a different premises at Ashiana Nagar, Patna, he found that the truck could not even be removed from that place as many of its essential parts and accessories, e.g., battery, pump, self, dynamo, seat etc. were missing. It appears that the petitioner apbroached the customs authorities for return of those essential parts and accessories iso that he may take away the truck but ihaving failed in his endeavour before the customs officials, he was finally forced to come to this court.

(3.) IT may, however, be noted that their own statements in the counter affidavit are somewhat self contradictory. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit a reference is made to the delivery receipt signed by the petitioner and immediately thereafter it is stated as follows : "At the time of taking delivery of said truck, the petitioner was told that some important parts of the truck, i.e., pump, self, dynamo and battery were removed and are kept in Customs Godown, Patna for safety purpose."