(1.) THE present appeal is against the impugned order of Commissioner, Customs, Patna vide he has inter alia confiscated the truck with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.0 lac.
(2.) SHRI P.K. Sengupta, learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the said truck was found to be loaded with foreign origin goods by the Custom Officers on its interception on 5 -6 -1998. He however submits that neither the owner nor the truck driver was aware of the fact that the goods loaded in the truck was contraband items. He submits that the other persons sitting in the truck who were accompanying the goods for Delhi have never stated in their statements that the fact of goods being smuggled were disclosed to the driver. As such he submits that the said driver was not having any knowledge about smuggled nature of the goods, confiscation of the truck in terms of provisions of Section 115(2) is not justified. He however makes it clear that no claim is being made by any person to the goods confiscated by the impugned order.
(3.) COUNTERING the argument Shri T. Prem Kumar, learned SDR draws my attention to the statement of the driver which is to the effect that he would have earned more than the normal fare by carrying the contraband goods. This fact submits the learned SDR is a pointer towards knowledge of the driver about contraband items. The adjudicating authority has also observed that on being questioned about the consignment loaded in the vehicle by the officers, the driver who was the person in -charge of the vehicle at the material time stated that the said truck was empty. This clearly suggests that the smuggled goods were being transported with the knowledge of the driver. As such in view of confessional statement of the driver it is proved that the vehicle in question was used in the transportation of the smuggled goods with his full knowledge. Confiscability of the vehicle is thus called for in terms of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.