Full Judgment
2. The brief facts of the case are that the customs authorities were handed over a Tata sumo which had third country origin goods along with four persons including the driver. On investigation it was found that the contraband was consisting of small transistor and battery cells of foreign origin. Authorities after a detailed investigation issued show cause notice to all concerned and the adjudicating authority confiscated the contraband goods, vehicle and imposed penalties on all the notice. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal),.against the confiscation of the vehicle and penalties imposed on them. The said appeal was rejected, hence this appeal.
3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. I find from the records that the no body claimed the ownership of the confiscated contraband goods, which admittedly were of third country origin and were in commercial quantity. The appellants herein have taken a plea that these goods were of smuggled nature were not proven but they have not claimed any ownership of the goods nor they could produce any documents regarding the licit ownership of the goods in India. In the absence of the any document to show that these third country origin goods were imported in to India legally, they have to be considered as smuggled goods. Since the appellant herein are only owner of the vehicle they cannot take a stand that the goods were not proved to be as smuggled.
4. As regards the confiscation of the vehicle used for the transporting the smuggled goods to my mind the provisions of the Section 115 are applicable. As the driver of the appellants had in his statement has admitted that there were no documents in his or the other occupants possession, and also keeping in mind the fact that the smuggled nature of goods being not disputed by producing documents, it is proved beyond doubt that the vehicle was used for transporting the contraband goods.
The confiscation of the vehicle under Section 115 of the Customs Act is upheld.5. As regards the penalty imposed on the appellants herein I find that they had only hired out their vehicle to the persons who came to their residence. Since it is on record that the appellants are giving on hire their vehicle for commuting people, no motive could be attached to this act. It was not in their knowledge that their vehicle would be used for transporting of the contraband goods, the penalties imposed on them under Section 112 of the Custom Act, 1962 are unwarranted. I set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants herein.
6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed partly as indicated in above paragraphs.