2006 (1) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds truck confiscation under Customs Act but overturns penalty due to lack of driver's awareness.

KAMLAKANT MISHRA Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

KAMLAKANT MISHRA Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 841 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Confiscation and penalty upheld by Order-in-Appeal, confiscation of goods and vehicle, imposition of penalty, appellant's appeal, owner's involvement in smuggling, driver's knowledge, burden of proof, Section 115(2) of Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of conveyances, owner's liability, penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation and Penalty Upheld:The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the confiscation of goods and vehicle, along with the imposition of a penalty. The appellant's truck was intercepted carrying foreign origin ball bearings concealed under rice husk. The appellant claimed innocence, stating he hired out the truck for transporting goods and was unaware of the smuggled nature of the goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and truck, imposing a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also denied relief, leading to this appeal.2. Owner's Involvement and Burden of Proof:The appellant argued that he was unaware of the illicit goods being transported, citing cases where confiscation and penalty on the owner were deemed incorrect if unaware of the goods' nature. However, the Department contended that the circumstances pointed to the appellant's involvement, especially as the driver's whereabouts were unknown, and no legitimate ownership claim was made for the foreign marked bearings.3. Application of Customs Act Sections:The Tribunal analyzed Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling. It stipulates that the owner must prove lack of knowledge or connivance. As the driver was in charge of the truck during the seizure, considered the agent of the owner, and no evidence showed the driver's lack of knowledge, the confiscation of the truck was deemed correct under this section.4. Penalty Imposition:Regarding the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal found that the appellant, who purchased the truck for livelihood, had no knowledge of the illicit goods. This was supported by the appellant lodging a complaint about the missing truck before its seizure. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant was set aside as he could not have been aware of the illicit goods being transported.5. Final Decision:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the driver's presumed knowledge of the illicit goods. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed incorrect, given his lack of awareness. Therefore, the appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty while upholding the confiscation of the truck.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the issues related to confiscation, penalty, owner's liability, and burden of proof under the Customs Act, 1962.