Court upholds truck confiscation under Customs Act for contraband; reduces redemption fine.

The court upheld the confiscation of a truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act due to the interception of contraband goods concealed beneath waste paper bundles. Despite the appellant's lack of knowledge, the driver's awareness of the goods was deemed sufficient for confiscation. The judge reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 15,000 considering the appellant's limited involvement and the extended custody of the truck. The appeal was rejected, except for the adjustment in the redemption fine amount.

---

---

Issues: Confiscation of truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem, lack of penalty imposition, driver's knowledge about contraband goods, identification of consignor, reasonableness of redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of a truck carrying waste paper bundles, beneath which contraband goods were concealed. The goods included torches, emergency lights, pencils, silk yarn, motors, and chemicals, valued at Rs. 14,39,350. A show cause notice was issued leading to the absolute confiscation of the goods and the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem the truck on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000. No penalty was imposed on the appellant.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the driver, employed by the appellant, was unaware of the contraband goods loaded by another individual named Moti. The advocate highlighted that the driver's statements did not admit knowledge of the contraband goods. The advocate contended that the confiscation of the truck was unjustified, as neither the appellant nor the driver had knowledge of the contraband goods. The appellant could not afford the high security demanded for the provisional release of the truck.

3. The respondent's representative argued that the recovery of contraband goods from the truck was undeniable. It was presumed that the driver, being in charge of the truck during loading, should have exercised due diligence. Even if the appellant's knowledge was not established, the driver's awareness of the goods was evident. The respondent supported the confiscation of the truck and deemed the redemption fine reasonable compared to the value of the contraband goods.

4. The judge agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the driver's lack of care in identifying the consignor and the failure to respond to the show cause notice were detrimental to the appellant's case. The judge upheld the confiscation of the truck, stating that the burden of proving reasonable precautions during loading fell on the appellant. However, considering the prolonged custody of the truck and the appellant's lack of knowledge regarding the driver's actions, the judge reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 15,000. The appeal was rejected except for the modification in the quantum of the redemption fine.

---