1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-original dated 8-9-2000 vide which the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him, through the impugned order.
2. The appellant was a driver on Truck No. MP-23 D/7893 on 3-4-1998 when the said truck was intercepted on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway by the DRI Officers. There were two other occupants in the truck. The appellant along with the two occupants was brought to the DRI Office of Nepal Division. The goods loaded in the truck were examined and that examination resulted in the recovery of ball bearings, cosmetics, rechargeable NI-CD (Nickel Cadmium) Pencil batteries etc. of foreign origin. The present appellant admitted his involvement in the smuggling of the goods, in his statement. The other persons also did not contest their liability. The Commissioner through the impugned order directed absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 82,96,900/- and also of the truck of the appellant. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant and of the same amount on Shri Kailash Chand Solanki, co-drivcr.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Today, none has come present for prosecuting the appeal. Mis Counsel has also not appeared. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.4. We have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner. The bare perusal of the order shows that the appellant was caught at the spot when the truck, of which he was driver, carrying the contraband goods, was intercepted on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway. He in his own statement ad-milted the recovery of the contraband goods from his truck and could not offer any explanation. We do not find any ground to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner which had been based on the appellant's own admission, in the involvement of the smuggling of the goods. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner, in our view, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality and as such the same is upheld against the appellant 5. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed being without any merit.