TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Owner's Appeal Denied in Redemption Fine Case under Customs Act</h1> <h3>Srimati Minati Saha Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati</h3> Srimati Minati Saha Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 736 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty, Proper Section for Confiscation, Knowledge of Owner about Smuggled GoodsAnalysis:The appellant, the owner of a truck, appealed against the imposition of a Redemption Fine of Rs. 1 Lakh after her truck was intercepted carrying smuggled goods. The Customs Officers found 7400 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Linctus in each of the two trucks intercepted. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but upheld the Redemption Fine, leading to the appellant's appeal.The main contention raised by the appellant was that she had no knowledge of the loading of the smuggled goods onto her truck. The appellant also argued that the Show Cause Notice did not specify the proper Section for confiscation of the goods. The appellant's advocate cited a Tribunal decision in support of their arguments. However, the Revenue's representative reiterated the lower authorities' findings, stating that errors in quoting the Customs Act's section in the Show Cause Notice do not invalidate the proceedings, citing relevant case laws.The Tribunal found that no one claimed the seized goods, indicating an attempt to illegally export them to Bangladesh. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the truck driver was aware of loading the goods for illegal export. Section 115 of the Customs Act allows for the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. In this case, the appellant failed to prove that she and her driver had no knowledge of transporting the smuggled goods, justifying the confiscation of the truck. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, citing evidence of the driver's knowledge of the smuggled goods and the inapplicability of the cited case law to the current situation.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating no grounds for interference. The appellant's appeal was rejected, and the judgment was pronounced in open court.
TaxTMI 