https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773494 The HC allowed the appeal by the vehicle owner/transporter against customs authorities. The court held that confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not justified as no evidence established the appellant's knowledge or involvement in smuggling Vietnamese Black Pepper and Arhar from Nepal. The redemption fine imposed under Section 125 in lieu of confiscation was consequently set aside. The penalty under Section 112 was also removed as the appellant merely provided transportation services without collusion in the smuggling offense. The court emphasized that mere vehicle ownership is insufficient for confiscation without proof of owner's complicity or knowledge of illegal activities. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773494 The HC allowed the appeal by the vehicle owner/transporter against customs authorities. The court held that confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not justified as no evidence established the appellant's knowledge or involvement in smuggling Vietnamese Black Pepper and Arhar from Nepal. The redemption fine imposed under Section 125 in lieu of confiscation was consequently set aside. The penalty under Section 112 was also removed as the appellant merely provided transportation services without collusion in the smuggling offense. The court emphasized that mere vehicle ownership is insufficient for confiscation without proof of owner's complicity or knowledge of illegal activities. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773494