RAJDOOT ROAD CARRIER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these three appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 30 -6 -1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, these are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence recovered 360 kgs. of raw silk yarn valued at Rs. 5,76,000/ - in 9 packages from a Truck No. WB -03/9011 on 26 -9 -1996, which was detained at the Naubatpur Trade Tax Check post by the Trade Tax Authorities. The goods were booked, as per consignment notes, as Rebooking Readymade goods by one M/s. Gopal Bhai from Calcutta to self at Seroli (Surat). The officers seized the said goods under customs Act alongwith Miscellaneous Indian Goods valued at Rs. 2,79,561 / - and the Truck under the reasonable belief that silk yarn was smuggled into the country; Indian goods were used for concealing the same and truck was used as means of transportation. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order confiscated absolutely the raw silk yarn of Chinese origin; confiscated Indian goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/ -; confiscated the truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and imposed penalty as under:

(3.) SHRI K.M. Makwana, ld. Consultant, submitted on behalf of M/s. Rajdoot Road Carriers and Rajdoot Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. that they are engaged in business of transportation of goods; that the consignment received by them for transportation are not opened by them; that it is also not possible to open the packages; that nowhere such practice prevails and as such the Commissioner has wrongly held about their involvement in the case; that the normal trade practice is to accept the goods for transport on the basis of the declaration given by the consignor. He further submitted that on receipt of the message from the driver, an employee was sent to the spot and they came to know about the reality when contrabands were found from the cartons; that the transporter is not required to know the name of the persons who came for booking the consignment; that it is also not required to identify the name of the person on whose name, consignment is booked; that neither the transporter nor driver are responsible for misdeclaration of goods by the consignors; that the truck driver is only responsible for the number of packages which are loaded in the truck; that the Department has failed to prove that the owner of the truck, transporter or the driver had knowledge of the contents of the cartons. He also mentioned that the miscelleneous Indian goods were not used for concealing the smuggled goods as these goods were pertaining to other customers and were destined for different places. The similar submissions were made by the ld. Consultant on behalf of the third Appellant Shri Ishwar Singh, Driver. He relied upon the decision in the case of Nepal Singh v. Commissioner of Customs -1998 (104) E.L.T. 336 (T) wherein it was held that for confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of Customs Act, knowledge of the owner or the person in charge of the truck about the smuggled nature of the goods is a pre -requisite. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of ABC India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, -1999 (107) E.L.T. 503 (T) wherein it was held that where the nexus was not established between the owner of the contraband and the owner of the goods used for concealment, there was no cause for confiscation of the latter under Section 119 of the Customs Act.