2017 (9) TMI 1271 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Smuggling Penalty: Driver's Plea Denied, Owner's Redemption Fine Reduced

M/s Zubair Ahmad & Firoz Ansari Versus C.C. & C.E. & S.T. – Allahabad

The tribunal upheld the penalty on the driver and the confiscation of the vehicle for smuggling betel nuts under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the ... Smuggling - Betel nuts - confiscation - penalty - Held that: - the driver has admitted that he was transporting the said betel nuts and failed to explain the source of procurement of betel nuts, he only said that one person stopped him and told that there is some consignment which is carrying from Sonauli to Gorakhpur and for that he will get the fare of ₹ 4,000/- and he failed to explain the name and address of the person who loaded the betel nuts in pickup van - He also admitted his crime before the officers - penalty imposed on Shri Zubair Ahmad of ₹ 25,000/-, qua on Appellant No. 1 is justified. Confiscation - quantum of redemption fine - Held that: - the vehicle in question was involved in transportation of betel nuts whom source could not be explained by the Appellant No. 1 in that circumstance, vehicle is liable for confiscation, and the order of confiscation is justified - redemption fine has been imposed to the tune of ₹ 90,000/- is highly excessive, and is reduced to ₹ 40,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues: Smuggling of betel nuts, confiscation of vehicle, penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, justification of penalty and confiscation, reduction of redemption fine.Analysis:1. Smuggling of Betel Nuts:The case involved the search of a Mahindra Pickup Van carrying 2030 kg of betel nuts, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the driver and the vehicle owner. The driver admitted to transporting the betel nuts without disclosing the source or recipient details, leading to the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Confiscation of Vehicle:The appellant argued that the vehicle owner was unaware of the contraband transportation, contesting the confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the tribunal upheld the confiscation, citing the driver's admission of guilt and failure to provide essential details, justifying the confiscation of the vehicle.3. Penalty Imposition:The appellant claimed that the driver, being a poor sole breadwinner, should not be penalized as he was unaware of the illegal activity. Despite this, the tribunal found the penalty of &8377; 25,000 justified due to the driver's admission of transporting the betel nuts for extra money, indicating his involvement in the smuggling activity.4. Reduction of Redemption Fine:The tribunal noted that while the redemption fine of &8377; 90,000 was imposed, it was deemed excessive. Consequently, the tribunal intervened and reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 40,000, allowing the owner of the vehicle to redeem it upon payment of the revised fine.In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeals, affirming the penalty on the driver and the confiscation of the vehicle while reducing the redemption fine. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing complete information and the consequences of involvement in smuggling activities under the Customs Act, 1962.