1994 (3) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs for allegedly carrying contraband goods. The truck was subsequently released provisionally by the order of the Superintendent dated 11-10-1988 on the appellant depositing Rs. 50,000/- and executing a bond for Rs. 3 lakhs. 3. It was his submission that the goods alleged to have been smuggled which were found in the truck had been loaded by the driver without his knowledge or permission and he had no connection with the contraband goods and their carriage and, therefore, it is the fault of the driver. 4. It was his submission that actually he was ill and had gone away to his village and was away for nearly two months when the seizure took place and, therefore, he was not aware of what his driver had done and, therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ading of the show cause notice itself, it would become apparent that how the Customs staff intercepted two trucks and one of them which belongs to the appellant was found to carry contraband goods such as almonds concealed under coal and the driver confessed that the foreign almonds were packed in packages and on his information, the other truck with contraband goods such as synthetic yarn and chinese torches concealed under the coal was also seized. 10. The word `legal' in the show cause notice is a typographical error and is meant to indicate illegal import from Nepal and the reasonable belief has been shown for the purpose of seizure. 11 In fact, this is a well known mode of illegal diversion of goods imported for Nepal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the driver has admitted the offence. In so far as the question of knowledge and liability of the owner to penalty and of the truck to confiscation is concerned, we observe that since both the Department and the appellant are relying on the statement of the driver and this statement also mentions inter alia that they used to earn extra charges for carrying contraband and this used to be shared between the driver and the owner, this itself shows that the truck was being deliberately used for carrying contraband with the consent of the owner on the basis of an understanding. In the circumstances, we hold that the truck was liable to confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty. However, we observe that the learned Counsel is correct in....