Tribunal rules container not 'package', penalty vacated for lack of evidence

The Tribunal upheld the decision that the container could not be confiscated under Section 118(b) of the Customs Act, as it was not considered a 'package'. The penalty imposed under Section 117 was also vacated as there was no evidence of the respondents' involvement in the attempt to export the contraband. Consequently, the order vacating the confiscation of the container and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue was sustained.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against confiscation of container under Section 118(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed under Section 117.

Confiscation of Container under Section 118(b): The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the confiscation of a container stuffed with white marble slabs but later found with red sanders logs. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the container could not be confiscated under Section 118(b) as it was not considered a 'package'. The decision was based on various judicial authorities. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the container was correctly held not to be a package as per Section 118(b) of the Act. Therefore, the order vacating the confiscation of the container was sustained.

Penalty Imposed under Section 117: The penalty imposed on the respondents under Section 117 was challenged in the appeal. The original authority had not found that the respondents knowingly abetted the attempt to export the contraband red sanders logs by leasing the container to Moonlight. The Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the penalty, stating that there was no evidence of the respondents' involvement in any act rendering the seized logs liable for confiscation. The Tribunal upheld this decision as well, stating that the penalty imposed on the respondents was not justified. Therefore, the impugned order concerning the penalty was sustained, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

---