KAMAL JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER dispensing with the condition of predeposit of Rs. 50,000/ - I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.

(2.) THE appellant is a transporter and hires the other persons trucks for the purposes of transportation. The appellant is aggrieved with confiscation of the jute bales alleged to have been used for concealing the foreign origin goods and imposition of personal penalty upon him. The contention of Shri K.P. Dey, ld. Advocate is that merely because the jute bales were found to be in the same truck in which the contraband goods were found does not ipso facto show that the jute bales were used for concealment purposes justifying their confiscation. For this proposition he relies upon Tribunals decision in the case of Mazda Chemicals - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 767.

(3.) AS regards the imposition of personal penalty he submits that there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the transporter. Merely because the appellant has arranged for the truck for transportation of the goods which was jute bales and merely because the driver en route might have loaded the other contraband items, does not mean that the appellant has to be penalised. For the above proposition he relies upon Tribunals decision in the case of Rajdoot Road Carrier - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 146 (T).