1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal overturns taxi confiscation in smuggling case, lack of evidence on owners' knowledge</h1> The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of a taxi owned by two individuals, intercepted with smuggled goods, due to lack of evidence showing their prior ... Confiscation of conveyance used for smuggled goods Issues:Claim for waiver of predeposit of redemption fine for confiscated vehicle.Analysis:The case involved two co-owners of a taxi seeking waiver of predeposit of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 for their vehicle confiscated by Customs Authorities. The vehicle was intercepted with smuggled goods, and proceedings resulted in absolute confiscation of the goods and the vehicle. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of the vehicle but set aside the penalty on the owners due to lack of evidence showing their prior knowledge of smuggling.The main issue was whether the confiscation of the vehicle was justified based on the owners' knowledge of the smuggling activity. The appellants argued that there was no evidence proving their prior knowledge of the goods being smuggled in their vehicle. They contended that the driver was unaware of the contents of the luggage, and it was not the driver's practice to inquire about the luggage carried by passengers. They cited previous tribunal and Supreme Court judgments to support their claim that confiscation without knowledge or connivance of owners or drivers was not justified.The Revenue, represented by the JDR, argued that prior knowledge of the owners about the use of the vehicle for smuggling was not a mandatory requirement for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. They referred to a tribunal decision to support their position.The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments and examining the record, found that there was no evidence to suggest that the driver or the owners had prior knowledge of the smuggling activity. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants' contention that the confiscation of the vehicle was unwarranted and unjustified. The Tribunal distinguished the referenced tribunal decision provided by the Revenue and concluded that it did not apply to the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation of the vehicle, allowing the appeals and disposing of the Stay Petitions in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
