Harvinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Harvinder Singh vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 24, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40592

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40592
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Oct 24, 2005
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harvinder Singh

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

.....the revenue confiscated the truck only on the ground that driver of the truck made a statement that truck was used earlier to smuggle tetracycline. the contention is that no quantity of oxy-tetracyclene was mentioned which was recovered from the truck when it was intercepted on 7-4-2000 in the recovery memo or in the show cause notice. the contention is that even truck driver in his statement had not named the appellant at whose instance the contraband goods were carried in the truck. the contention is that the preset appellant are not involved in any activity which violates the provisions of customs act, therefore, order is not sustainable.5. the contention of the revenue is that certain remains of oxy-tetracyclene was recovered from the cavity of the truck which shows that the truck was earlier used to carry the substance. the contention is that the truck driver admitted in his statement that earlier the truck was used for carrying the smuggled goods from the nepal into india, therefore, the truck is liable for confiscation.6. in the present case nothing was recovered from the truck which shows that truck is used for smuggling activity only some remains of oxy-teracyclene was present in the cavity which does not prove that the substance was smuggled into india. there is no evidence against the present appellant that they are involved in smuggling of goods in the truck or the truck was used for smuggling of the goods into india. in these circumstances, the confiscation and imposition of penalty on the present appellant are not sustainable and set aside. the appeals are allowed.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal whereby their truck was absolutely confiscated and personal penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each were imposed on the appellant. The appellant Sukhbir Kaur was the owner of the truck and Harbinder Singh is the husband of Sukhbir Kaur.

3. The case of the Revenue is that on 7-4-2002 a truck was intercepted at Raxaul and some yellowish powder was found in the cavity of the truck and it was sent for chemical examination which confirmed that it was oxy-tetracyclene. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the truck and imposed the penalties.

4. The contention of the appellant is that nothing was recovered from the truck only remains of yellowish powder which found to be oxy-tetracyclene. The Revenue confiscated the truck only on the ground that driver of the truck made a statement that truck was used earlier to smuggle tetracycline. The contention is that no quantity of oxy-tetracyclene was mentioned which was recovered from the truck when it was intercepted on 7-4-2000 in the recovery memo or in the show cause notice. The contention is that even truck driver in his statement had not named the appellant at whose instance the contraband goods were carried in the truck. The contention is that the preset appellant are not involved in any activity which violates the provisions of Customs Act, therefore, order is not sustainable.

5. The contention of the Revenue is that certain remains of oxy-tetracyclene was recovered from the cavity of the truck which shows that the truck was earlier used to carry the substance. The contention is that the truck driver admitted in his statement that earlier the truck was used for carrying the smuggled goods from the Nepal into India, therefore, the truck is liable for confiscation.

6. In the present case nothing was recovered from the truck which shows that truck is used for smuggling activity only some remains of oxy-teracyclene was present in the cavity which does not prove that the substance was smuggled into India. There is no evidence against the present appellant that they are involved in smuggling of goods in the truck or the truck was used for smuggling of the goods into India. In these circumstances, the confiscation and imposition of penalty on the present appellant are not sustainable and set aside. The appeals are allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Harvinder Singh vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Customs Same Judge S Kang, Vice-