LAWS(CE)-2002-10-139

JAGDISH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On October 23, 2002
JAGDISH Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, therefore, are being taken -up together. S/Sh. Charan Singh and Jagraj Singh, owners of the trucks, filed appeals against the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on their trucks. S/Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Pappu filed appeals challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. ten thousand under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 6 -5 -99, two trucks were intercepted by the Customs officers and 25 bags containing small cardamoms were recovered from each truck. Statements of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, driver of one of the trucks and Sh. Pappu, cleaner of one of the trucks, were recorded as other driver and cleaner ran away from the spot. S/Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Pappu, in their statements, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted that the smuggled cardamoms were loaded in their truck by Sh. Raja Babu and they were to receive higher rate of fare and also Rs. one thousand extra for transporting the smuggled cardamoms to Delhi. The cardamoms valued at Rs. Ten lakh was not claimed by anybody. Sh. Raja Babu never appeared before the adjudicating authority in spite of being summoned. The adjudicating authority confiscated 2500 kgs. of small cardamoms along with trucks. The adjudicating authority ordered release of one truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. one lakh and the second truck was ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. Penalties of Rs. 10,000/ - were imposed on S/Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Pappu.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that small cardamoms were not notified goods, therefore, the onus is on the revenue to prove that the seized goods were smuggled goods. For this he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Prakash and Ors. v. C.C., New Delhi reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 882 (Tri. - Del.) = 1999 (83) ECR 236 (T). The contention of the appellants is also that the experts, who examined the goods to say that small cardamoms were of foreign origin, had not given any reasoning in their opinion as to how they reached the conclusion regarding the origin of the cordamoms. The goods, in question, were loaded at the instance of Raja Babu and drivers and conductors of the trucks had no knowledge regarding the nature of the goods whether they were smuggled goods or of Indian origin.