TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 Adjudicating Authority confiscated trucks of the appellants and gave the owners option to redeem the same on payment of redemption of Rs. 1,65,000/- each. A penalty of Rs. 3,25,000/- was also imposed upon each appellant by the Adjudication authority in remand proceedings ordered by an earlier order dt 04/01/13 of the bench. 2. Sh. N.K choudhary (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that on the basis of a secret information on 23/3/2001 the officers of customs Preventive Division, Muzaffarpur took a position at Jhaphan and saw a truck coming from Sitamarhi side at 07.15 AM. After getting signal driver of the truck stopped the vehicle but fled from the site. Thereafter three more trucks. Were also stopped by the offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the period of six months from the date of seizure was expiring. 2.2 That sample of the seized garlic were sent to Deputy Director Regional Plant Quarantine station, Salt Lake city Kolkata and on testing were found to be infected with Embellisia allii, a quarantine pathogen & were suggested for destruction. That the entire quantity of 52700 Kgs of seized garlic was destroyed on the bank of River. Buddi, Gandak at Sikandarpur, MuZaffarpur. 2.3. That after the issue of first show cause notice on 24/08/2009, the identity of the real owners of the truck established on the basis of reporters from District Transport officers to whom letters were issued by the investigation. That statements of all the four truck owners/Authorized person we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority. That on the return journey the drivers, without the knowledge of the owners, have undertaken an illegal activity for which the owners can not be held responsible. It was his case that the details of addresses available with the appellants were intimated to the investigation. Learned Advocate relied upon the following important case laws to argue that vehicles can not be confiscated & penalties can not be imposed upon his clients as they had no knowledge of the activities undertaken by their drivers:- (i) Manjeet Singh VS CC New Delhi [2001(127)ELT 153(Tri. Del.)] (ii) CC(P) Kolkata Vs Md. Abdul Salam [2005 (186)ELT 2931(Tri. Kolkata)] (iii) Munna Vs CC Lucknow [2003(157)ELT 348 (Tri-Del.)] (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of vehicles their redemption and imposition of penalties have been correctly made by the Adjudicating authority. Learned AR also argued that charges of imposition of penalties under Sec 112 of the Customs Act 1962 upon the appellants notices was specifically made under corrigendum dt 16/4/2010 issued to the appellants under C No. viii (10) 413- CUS /Seiz/Muz/ 08-09-073-79. That the ingredients of Section-112 have been discussed in Para-4.09 of the OIO. Learned AR relied upon the case law of S. Jamal Vs CC (AIR) Chennai [2014(307) ELT-269 Mad)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The only issue required to be decided in these proceedings is whether appellants had prior knowledge of the Smuggled nature of the seized garl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s definitely had knowledge of the contraband and smuggled nature of garlic. That is why the drivers ran away and never came forward during investigation. There is thus nothing irregular regarding confiscation of said vehicles & their release on payment of redemption fine. No interference is therefore called for regarding confiscation / redemption of vehicles order passed by the Adjudicating authority. 5. So for as imposition of penalties upon the appellants is concerned though no Section has been quoted in the order portion by the adjudicating authority but Sec 112 (b) of the Customs Act 1962 has been discussed in Para- 4.09 of the OIO dt 17/05/2013. It has been rightly observed by the Adjudicating authority that correct residential deta....