Smuggling involvement upheld, but motorcycle confiscation was replaced with redemption and the penalty was reduced.

Participation in smuggling was upheld where the appellant and carrier shifted blame, the appellant gave an incorrect parentage, tried to evade Customs, was re-apprehended, and made an on-the-spot admission of involvement for monetary gain; the penalty was therefore sustained but reduced. Absolute confiscation of the motorcycle was found unjustified because it belonged to the appellant's brother, so redemption of the vehicle was allowed on payment of Rs. 3,000. The penalty was also reduced to Rs. 5,000, leaving the finding of smuggling involvement intact while granting limited relief on confiscation and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was involved in the smuggling of the seized printer, warranting confirmation of penalty; and (ii) whether absolute confiscation of the motorcycle was justified or it should be allowed to be redeemed.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was involved in the smuggling of the seized printer, warranting confirmation of penalty.

Analysis: The appellant and the carrier were found shifting responsibility to each other after interception. The appellant's conduct, including giving an incorrect name of his father, attempting to evade Customs, and being re-apprehended, together with his on-the-spot statement admitting involvement for monetary gain, established his participation in the smuggling operation.

Conclusion: The finding of involvement was upheld and the penalty was not set aside, though it was reduced.

Issue (ii): whether absolute confiscation of the motorcycle was justified or it should be allowed to be redeemed.

Analysis: The motorcycle belonged to the appellant's brother, and on the facts of the case absolute confiscation was considered unjustified. Redemption of the vehicle on payment of a reduced amount was found appropriate.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was set aside to the extent of allowing redemption of the motorcycle on payment of Rs. 3,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's involvement in smuggling was sustained, but the confiscation and penalty were modified in his favour to the limited extent of redemption of the motorcycle and reduction of penalty.

---