ABDUL MAJID ANSARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna. Vide the said order apart from imposing personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/ - (rupees thirty thousand) on Shri Abdul Majid Ansari, who is the owner of the truck in question and penalty of Rs. 30,000/ - (rupees thirty thousand) on Shri Vidya Sagar, he has absolutely confiscated the silk yarn in question as also the truck used for transportation of the said silk yarn with an option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/ - (rupees one lakh fifty thousand). The appellants herein are aggrieved with confiscation of truck and imposition of personal penalties upon them. Nobody has claimed the ownership of the silk yarn before the adjudicating authority.

(2.) I have heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for Shri Abdul Majid Ansari. Nobody has appeared for the second appellant Shri Vidya Sagar in spite of todays notice of hearing having been sent to him. Shri D.K. Bhowmik. ld. JDR appears for the Revenue.

(3.) THE owner of the truck Shri Abdul Majid Ansari has been penalised by the adjudicating authority on the ground that he is the real owner of the truck and he has not appeared before the adjudicating authority on the various dates of personal hearing. He has further observed that instead of claiming his ownership of the truck before the customs authorities he has moved the Honble High Court of Patna. From this he has concluded that the said appellant has wilfully connived in the instant case. However, after hearing both the sides and going through the impugned order I find that there is no evidence reflecting upon the knowledge of the appellant as regards the use of his truck for transportation of contraband items. Non -appearance of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority or moving the High Court for release of the trucks cannot be held to be evidences so as to conclude adversely against the appellant. In these circumstances I hold that the imposition of personal penalty upon the appellant was not justified. The same is accordingly set aside.