TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the tempos used for transporting the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether penalties on the appellants were sustainable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether the tempos used for transporting the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The confiscation provision for a conveyance used in the transport of smuggled goods was held inapplicable where the record did not establish knowledge or connivance on the part of the drivers or the persons in charge of the conveyance. The statements on record showed that the tempos had been hired and that the drivers denied knowledge of the contraband character of the goods. On that basis, the exception contained in Section 115(2) was found attracted.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the three tempos was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether penalties on the appellants were sustainable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Penalty under Section 112(a) required an omission or commission rendering the goods liable to confiscation, or abetment thereof, and Section 112(b) required concern in dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation. No material established that the appellants had done any act or omission bringing the goods within Section 111, or that they had acquired, possessed, carried, removed, deposited, concealed, sold, purchased, or otherwise dealt with the goods with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe.
Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the appellants were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The conveyances could not be confiscated and the penal action lacked the necessary statutory foundation, resulting in complete relief to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115 and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained absent proof of knowledge, connivance, or the requisite culpable involvement in the smuggled goods.
TaxTMI 
