BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the Order -in -Appeal dated 29.4.2004 wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) after hearing the appellant had reduced the penalty from Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs.5000/ -

(2.) THE relevant facts for consideration are that Customs authorities on 1.3.2000 intercepted a vehicle which was carrying contraband goods. On further investigation, show cause notices were issued to many persons and current appellant, being one of them. The appellant before me was asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 being de facto owner of the vehicle which was used for transporting contraband. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/ - on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case had reduced the penalty from Rs. 15000/ - to Rs.5000/ -. This appeal is filed against the imposition of penalty itself.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the imposition of penalty Under Section 112 on the current appellant is totally wrong and misconceived. She submits that the penalty has been imposed on the appellant based only on the statement of the driver of the vehicle which was intercepted by the Customs officers. She also submits that the documents relating to the ownership of the vehicle were produced, where the goods were seized with the car, which categorically show that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle but somebody else was owner of the vehicle. She submits that in respect of the definition of "owner" under Motor Vehicle Act, the current appellant will not become the owner. She also submits that imposition of penalty based only on the statement of the co -accused is contrary to the settled law.