Tribunal overturns Customs Act penalties, orders release of truck held for 7 years

The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on appellants under the Customs Act for the confiscation of contraband goods, finding no evidence of their knowledge. The confiscation of the truck was overturned due to lack of proof of its involvement in illicit activities, emphasizing the absence of the driver during interception. The truck was ordered to be released after being held for seven years. The judgment did not address the confiscability of the yarn, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of contraband goods and imposition of penalties.
2. Confiscation of the truck in question.

Confiscation of Contraband Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The case involved the seizure of contraband goods, specifically polyesterised textured yarn of foreign origin, from a truck near the Nepal Border. The truck was unmanned at the time of interception, and the goods were concealed under old plastic scraps. The ownership of the truck was claimed by the minor owner and his father. The Customs Preventive Commissioner confiscated the contraband goods and imposed penalties on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants challenged the confiscation and penalties, arguing that they had no knowledge of the contraband and that the seizure was based on incorrect facts. The appellants also highlighted that the driver was not present during the interception, and the FIR was lodged after the seizure. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove the appellants' knowledge of the contraband, setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Confiscation of the Truck:
The appellants contested the confiscation of the truck, claiming they were unaware of its use for illicit purposes. The truck was found unmanned during interception, and the regular driver was not interrogated by customs officers. The Tribunal noted that no penalty was imposed on the driver and that the driver's absence during interception was significant. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments where drivers or personnel were present during interception, shifting the burden of proof. In this case, the truck was unmanned, and an FIR was lodged against the driver by the owner. The Tribunal found the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority unwarranted and ordered the immediate release of the truck, considering it had been in custody for seven years. The judgment did not address the confiscability of the yarn, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---