SHRI AMERJEET SINGH Vs. CC LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, filed by Shri Amarjeet Singh, the issue involved is whether his truck is liable for confiscation and whether penalty is imposable on him under the customs Act.

(2.) Shri A.C.Jain, ld. Advocate, mentioned at the outset that he is not challanging the smuggled nature of the goods carried in his truck NO. UP 78B/0266. He, further, mentioned that his truck went to deliver pulse at Motihari; that his drive Shrikant loaded the goods on return journey which were contravened and seized by the Customs Officer on 27 -10 -97 alongwith another Truck No. UP -78/N 8642, that the Commissioner, in the impugned Order No. 49/CCP/LKD/98 dt. 30 -11 -98, confiscated, interalia his truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - him, holding that Shrikant, Driver, had in his statements dt. 27 -10 -97 and 28 -10 -97 deposed that Appellant had directed him to load the impugned goods and to hand over the freight to him on return to Kanpur. The Ld. Advocate submitted that whenever truck goes to deliver goods, driver is instructed to load goods on return so that truck does not have an empty run; that it does not mean that he had directed the driver to load the smggled goods; that in any case Shrikant had not deposed that he (the Appellant) had directed him to load the impugned goods. The Ld. Advocate read out the statements of Shrikant in support of his contention. The ld. Advocate also mentioned that the Appellant did not have any knowledge of contraband goods loaded in his truck; that nothing incriminating was found in his residential premises; that even in findings at internal pages 11 -12 of the impugned Order, there is no mention about the role of the Appellant; that accordingly no penalty can be imposed upon him under section 112 of the Customs Act. The Ld. Advocate finally submitted that the Appellant earns his livelyhood only from Truck and requested for release of truck on payment of nominal redemption fine.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Shri A.K.Jain, Ld. DR, submitted that the contraband goods were loaded in the truck inconcealed manner; that the driver, person incharge, had loaded the impugned goods with knowledge that the goods were smuggled from Nepal and secreted in the specially designed cavity in the dala of the truck; that driver Shri Kant had stated in his statement dt. 28 -10 -97 that the Appellant told him to load the smuggled goods at Motihari. The ld. DR emphasised that there are sufficient circumstantial evidence against the Appellant and as such penalty is imposable upon him under the Customs Act.