Customs appeal jurisdiction is limited to assessment issues; confiscation relief requires proof of lack of knowledge or connivance.

An appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act lies only where the Tribunal's order concerns the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment; an order limited to reduction of redemption fine does not satisfy that jurisdictional , so the challenge is not maintainable. Relief against confiscation of a truck under Section 115(2) depends on proof that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent, or person in charge, and that burden must be discharged on the facts. On the stated facts, no basis existed to interfere with either confiscation or the redemption fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was maintainable under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, when the Tribunal's order did not relate to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment; (ii) whether interference was warranted with the confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine in view of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was maintainable under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, when the Tribunal's order did not relate to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment.

Analysis: The appeal right under Section 130E is confined to orders relating to the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. The impugned Tribunal order only reduced the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation and did not raise the kind of assessment issue contemplated by the provision.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and the preliminary objection succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted with the confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine in view of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Relief against confiscation depended on proof that, when the contraband was found in the truck, it was used without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant, his agent, or the person in charge. That burden was not discharged on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the confiscation or the redemption fine.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 lies only where the Tribunal's order concerns the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment, and interference with confiscation under Section 115(2) requires proof that the vehicle was used without the owner's or person-in-charge's knowledge or connivance.

---