Customs penalties and vehicle confiscation turn on proof of knowledge, illicit carriage, and statutory redemption rights.

Personal penalty under the Customs Act requires supporting material showing involvement or knowledge; retracted statements do not displace corroborated evidence and surrounding circumstances where the record establishes participation on a preponderance of probability. Confiscation of a vehicle used to carry illicitly imported goods may be sustained when the foreign origin and unlawful carriage are proved, but the owner must receive the statutory option to redeem the vehicle on payment of fine where the provision so requires. In the absence of direct evidence of presence or knowledge, a personal penalty cannot rest on suspicion or mere association with the transaction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the personal penalty imposed on Jasbir Singh was sustainable on the basis of the seized goods, the statements on record and the surrounding circumstances; (ii) whether the confiscation of the truck was valid, and if so whether the owner was entitled to an option to redeem it on payment of fine under the Customs Act; (iii) whether the personal penalty imposed on Jaspal Singh was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the personal penalty imposed on Jasbir Singh was sustainable on the basis of the seized goods, the statements on record and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The seized ball bearings were found to be of foreign origin from the panchnama and related record, and the evidence showed their loading from the premises associated with Singh Transport Co. The driver's statement corroborated the loading of the goods in the presence and knowledge of Jasbir Singh, and the explanation regarding the goods being stored by an unknown person did not inspire confidence. The retraction of the statements did not by itself displace the corroborated material and the surrounding circumstances, which established involvement on a preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The personal penalty on Jasbir Singh was upheld and the finding was against him.

Issue (ii): whether the confiscation of the truck was valid, and if so whether the owner was entitled to an option to redeem it on payment of fine under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The truck was used to carry goods whose foreign origin and illicit import were established by the record, and confiscation under the Customs Act was justified. However, the statutory scheme governing confiscation of a vehicle required that the owner be given an opportunity to redeem the vehicle on payment of fine, and that aspect had not been afforded in the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The confiscation was maintained, but the matter was remanded for grant of redemption option under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, and this issue was partly in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the personal penalty imposed on Jaspal Singh was sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not establish that Jaspal Singh was present at the time of loading or that there was direct evidence of his knowledge about the goods in the truck. In the absence of such material, the personal penalty could not be sustained merely on suspicion or association with the transaction.

Conclusion: The personal penalty imposed on Jaspal Singh was set aside and the issue was in his favour.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was sustained in part, with Jasbir Singh's penalty maintained, Jaspal Singh's penalty deleted, and the confiscation of the truck upheld subject to grant of redemption opportunity and consequential reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A personal penalty under the Customs Act requires supporting material showing involvement or knowledge, while confiscation of a vehicle may stand on proved illicit carriage of goods but the owner must be afforded the statutory option to redeem the vehicle where the provision so requires.

---