AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d gave her an option to redeem the same on payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The facts of the case are that on 15-6-1990 the Customs Officers (Preventive), Muzaffarpur, on information, went to Raxaul. When they saw the lorry bearing No. AS 01-1906 coming from Raxaul side, they signalled it to stop, but it sped up. They chased the lorry and fired at the same. The tyre of the lorry was punctured and then only it stopped. On search, they found foreign goods valuing Rs. 5,43,700. The inmates of the lorry Chandra Kishore Yadav, Raghunath Pd., Rahman Mian and Balmiki Giri could not produce any document. The driver Shri Benod Rai and the Khalashi ran away. The four persons gave statements stating that the goods of foreign origin were lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there was reasonable belief for the Officers to seize the same on the ground that they are smuggled goods. Therefore, even if the goods are not notified, the circumstances in this case show that the burden on the Department was discharged. The appellant did not produce any evidence to discharge this burden that these goods are not smuggled goods. The statement of the driver shows that these are smuggled goods. Hence, when these goods were found being carried in the lorry of the appellant, they are liable for confiscation. He relied on the following decisions : (1) Laxmi Sahani v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 108 (2) 1986 (26) E.L.T. 31 (3) 1982 (10) E.L.T. 615 4. We have considered the submissions of bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10-7-1990 stating that on 14-6-1990 he proceeded for Raxaul and reached Raxaul and parked the lorry at the petrol pump. From there, he went to Burigunge and returned. These four persons met him and negotiated for transhipment of these eight bags of goods for which the freight was fixed at Rs. 400/-. On demand of challan, they stated that since they were accompanying the goods, nothing was desirable and they will tackle the situation if it arises. This statement goes to show that the driver had the knowledge about the illicit nature of the goods. All these things totally go to show that the Department had discharged their burden. 5. The case law relied on by the learned Advocate in the case of Pradip Kumar Bhagat is not applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position shows the conduct of the people. Coupled with this fact it is admitted by the driver that he had gone to Burigunge, Nepal. All these circumstances are sufficient for the Department to discharge their burden and the appellant had not put forth any evidence to contradict the same. The other decision relied on by Shri Mukhopadhyay is distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the case of A. Haldar, there were no such circumstances. In that particular case, the appellant stated that he purchased the goods from Ashadha Das and he was transporting the same to Calcutta. Action against Ashadha Das was stopped by the Department. The only evidence against the appellant was that he was in possession of the goods which appeared to be for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the department, the order of confiscation and allowing the appellant to redeem the same does not arise. However, this is only a technical aspect. But since the lorry is already released and Rs. 60,000/- is already paid by the appellant for the release, the proper order will be to adjust the same towards the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the lorry. For that purpose, we need not send back the case again to the learned Additional Collector. In that view of the matter, we hold that the lorry in question is confiscable. But in lieu of confiscation, the department has the right to adjust or appropriate a certain sum towards the redemption fine. 8. In this case, the appellant is the wife of an army personnel who appointed ....