Judgment:
1. Shri Sarbjit Singh, owner of the truck from which the contraband goods were recovered is required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way of penalty amount imposed on him by the Commissioner of Customs.
The facts of the case are mentioned in the impugned order in detail.
Goods collectively valued at Rs.60,49,550/- were recovered and seized from the truck whose owner was Shri Sarbjit Singh. The contraband goods were hidden under cover and the goods were like ball bearings, rechargeable light with radio and cassette players etc. The goods according to the impugned order were smuggled from Nepal.
2. Ms. Sashi Kapila, Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is a person of small means. The truck was purchased by him but was given to ply through a driver. He was not concerned in the smuggling activity. The truck had also been confiscated and a heavy redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs had been imposed. She submits that nowhere in the order it has been mentioned that Shri Sarbjit Singh was actively engaged in the smuggling activities. She also referred that no particular section of the Customs Act had been mentioned under which the penalty had been imposed. The case of other notices was different as they were a part of smuggling syndicate while the present appellant had no knowledge that his truck was being misused by the driver to whom it had been given on contract basis. She submits that it is not a case where pre-deposit of the penalty amount be enforced. In reply Shri M.M.Dubey, DR refers to the relevant paras in the impugned order and submits that it was a case of large scale smuggling from Nepal of contraband goods by a smuggling syndicate and the truck has been used knowingly for smuggling activities.
3. We have carefully considered the matter. Presently we are concerned only with the disposal of the stay application filed by Shri Sarbjit Singh who is required to pre-deposit Rs.3 lakhs for hearing his appeal.
We find that the role of Shri Sarbjit Singh had been discussed by the Commissioner in para 9.3 which is reproduced below:- Thus in view of the above discussions, I find that truck No.HR-11GA-0494 used for transportation of the smuggled goods which was seized and later on released to Shri Sarbjit Singh, owner of the truck on supurdari of Rs.3,00,000/- vide ACMM Court order dated 11.6.99 was liable for confiscation under section 115(2). Though the truck has not been produced before me yet in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2000(115) ELT 278(SC) the truck was liable for confiscation. I also find that the submission of Shri Sarbjit Singh vis-a-vis his non-involvement as unsubstantiated, it is difficult to accept that the owner of a Truck having a value of Rs.6,00,000.00 would be unaware of the movements of the Truck.
Moreso, it is rather still unbelievable that the use of the Truck was left by the owner entirely at the behest of the Driver, namely, Sh. Krishan Rai. Although no statement of Sh.Krishan Rai had been recorded due to his non-availability, the facts and circumstances reveal that the Truck could not have been used by a smuggling syndicate operative at the Indo-Nepal border without his (the Truck Owner/s) knowledge." we find that the smuggling syndicate operating at Indo-Nepal Border had smuggled huge quantity of contraband goods in the truck which was owned by the present applicant. The Commissioner has concluded that the facts and circumstances reveal that the truck could not have been used by a smuggling syndicate without the knowledge of the truck owner.
4. After taking into account all the relevant facts and considerations we direct Shri Sarbjit Singh to pre-deposit Rs.50,000/- within the period as stipulated above, the pre-deposit of the rest of the penalty amount shall be waived and recovery stayed till above sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) is not deposited by the applicant within the above stipulated period then his appeal will be dismissed without further notice to him.