2015 (11) TMI 381 - AT - Customs

Dismissal of Appeals Upholding OIO Due to Smuggled Garlic Knowledge

The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed, upholding the OIO of May 17, 2013. The decision was based on the findings that the appellants had ... Confiscation of goods - transportation of smuggled goods - Improper documents - Whether appellants had prior knowledge of the Smuggled nature of the seized garlic of Chinese origin - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- Appellants have denied to have prior knowledge of the smuggled nature of seized garlic of Chinese origin. For confiscation of vehicle knowledge of the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicles is required as per Sec -115 of the Custom Act 1962 - It is observed from the case records that use of vehicles for transporting garlic of Chinese origin is established for which no claimant has come forward and even the drivers also had no document of licit import of the seized garlic. Drivers of the vehicles definitely had knowledge of the contraband and smuggled nature of garlic. That is why the drivers ran away and never came forward during investigation. There is thus nothing irregular regarding confiscation of said vehicles & their release on payment of redemption fine. No interference is therefore called for regarding confiscation / redemption of vehicles order passed by the Adjudicating authority. Correct residential details of the drivers were not maintained by the owners when they were giving vehicles valued more than ₹ 10 lakh to the drivers. No registration papers or driving license copies were found in the vehicles. For more than six months from the date of seizure & interception none of the owners made any attempt to locate their trucks when the same were in the possession of the department. - Only after the owners were traced out with the help of reports from DTO s did the appellants came forward to claim provisional release of vehicles. - Accordingly, order passed by the Adjudicating authority is well reasoned/justified and no interference is called for in the adjudication order - Decided against assessee. Issues involved:Appeal against OIO confiscating trucks, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.Detailed Analysis:Confiscation of Trucks and Redemption Fine:The appellants appealed against the OIO confiscating their trucks and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 1,65,000 each. The case involved the smuggling of Chinese garlic in the trucks. The drivers fled, and the garlic was seized. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the truck ownership details. Despite the appellants' claims of lack of knowledge about the illegal activity, the circumstantial evidence suggested otherwise. The Adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation and redemption fine, citing the requirement of owner's knowledge for confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act 1962. The drivers' actions and lack of licit import documents indicated their awareness of the contraband, justifying the confiscation and fine.Penalty Imposition:The Adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,25,000 on each appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962. The authority highlighted the owners' failure to maintain correct driver details and lack of efforts to monitor their vehicles post-seizure. The presence of duplicate number plates and absence of registration papers or licenses raised suspicions of complicity. The Adjudicating authority deemed the owners knowledgeable about the smuggling due to these factors, rejecting the appellants' arguments based on case laws. The authority's decision was supported by the evidence indicating owner awareness of the illegal activity. The penalty imposition was justified based on the owners' perceived involvement in the smuggling operation.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed, upholding the OIO of May 17, 2013. The decision was based on the findings that the appellants had knowledge of the smuggled garlic in their trucks, justifying the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposition. The Adjudicating authority's reasoning was deemed sound, and no interference was warranted in the adjudication order.