SURENDRAGAR P. GUSAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of the truck from which officers of Customs on 26 -6 -1987 recovered contraband goods like VCRs, VCR cassettes, wrist watches etc. totally valued Rs. 47,41,197/ -. The truck was chased and intercepted. The driver of truck Shri Haripuri, the appellant as the owner of the the truck were contacted on 27 -6 -1987 when he gave a statement that one Shri Gani Ibrahim has requested him to give the truck to him for transporting smuggled goods within Gujarat. The appellant agreed for a rent of Rs. 20,000/ -. Statement was also given by the clearner of the truck on 5 -7 -1987 in which he stated that the driver of the truck Shri Haripuri has gone along with him upto a place at Mothala village where the cleaner left the truck. Subsequently, he came to know about the interception with contrabands and informed the owner. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants among others and during the adjudication proceedings, the driver Haripuri stated in his cross examination that he was managing the truck and was using it on accepting payment for transport of goods. The Commissioner of Customs (P) Ahmedabad passed the impugned order dated 28 -4 -1988. He ordered absolute confiscation of the goods recovered from the truck under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and similarly ordered absolute confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. A personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was imposed on the appellant.

(2.) SHRI A.R. Thakkar, the Id. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the appellant did not have knowledge about the use of the truck for carrying contraband. The Id. Counsel referred to the statement of the clearner of the truck which brings out this aspect. The Commissioner has not given due consideration to this evidence. It is clear from the evidence that it was the driver Haripuri who was the cause of the use of the truck for carrying smuggled goods and not the appellant. Therefore, the confiscation of the truck absolutely without option to redeem the same under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act is harsh. The Id. Counsel submitted that the truck is still available with the department and pleaded for release therefore on a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Id. Counsel also urged that the penalty on the appellant in these circumstances is unjustified. In any case, the quantum should be reduced.

(3.) SHRI S.V. Singh, the Id. D.R. referred to the circumstances to the seizure which was effected after the truck was intercepted.