Appellate Tribunal CESTAT overturns truck confiscation and penalty in goods diversion case

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, set aside the confiscation of a truck and penalty imposed on the appellant in a case involving the diversion of goods under the advance licence scheme. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the transporter's awareness of the diversion, attributing the deviation to instructions from the importer's representative. Member (J) Archana Wadhwa highlighted the necessity of establishing awareness to penalize transporters for violations. The appellant was granted relief, emphasizing the importance of evidence in such cases.

---

---

Issues: Confiscation of truck and imposition of penalty under advance licence scheme

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, dealt with the challenge regarding the confiscation of a truck and the imposition of a penalty on the appellant. The case involved the transportation of goods from Kandla Port to Jamnagar under the advance licence scheme. The goods were found to have been cleared by the importer without payment of duty and diverted in violation of the licence conditions.

The facts on record revealed that the container was loaded onto the truck belonging to the appellant at Kandla under a specific gate pass. The consignment was intended for M/s. Banlev Chemexim (P) Ltd. in Jamnagar, with import documents handed over to the driver by the Customs House Agent (CHA). However, the truck deviated from the declared address and ended up at a different location in Jamnagar. The appellant claimed that this diversion was instructed by a representative of M/s. Banlev Chemexim (P) Ltd.

Upon review, the Tribunal found a lack of evidence demonstrating that the transporter was aware of the goods' diversion. The truck was intended for delivery in Jamnagar, and the goods were ultimately delivered as per the consignee's instructions. The Tribunal noted that the truck driver followed the importer's representative's lead, and the only discrepancy was the plot number. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the driver's lack of awareness of the diversion, in violation of the advance licence conditions, warranted giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt.

In the final decision, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the truck and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant. The judgment, delivered by Member (J) Archana Wadhwa, emphasized the importance of evidence and the need to establish awareness on the part of the transporter regarding any diversion of goods under the advance licence scheme.

---

---