Full Judgment
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a truck carrying CTC tea and on searching the said truck the officers found 13 bags of small cardamom, concealed under the tea bags. The truck, tea bags and cardamom were seized. The driver of the truck admitted in his statement that he loaded the contraband on the way and the transport company and the owner of the goods are not aware of the same. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the small cardamom, tea bags and the truck. Adjudicating authority on adjudication, ordered for absolute confiscation of foreign origin small cardamom, confiscated the truck and tea bags with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties on the driver and cleaner. This appeal is directed against the confiscation of the tea bags and truck.
3. Considered the submissions made by both sides at length and perused the records. I find that in this case the driver of the vehicle has clearly admitted the guilt of loading the contraband goods in his private capacity for self-monetary consideration. The appellant in this case had contracted for the transportation of the tea bags as is evident from the goods receipt note. Further I find that the contraband goods were loaded mid-way, by the driver and some of his accomplices, unconnected to the consignors of the tea bags. The appellant booked small consignment of the traders of tea to Delhi. I find that the revenue has not brought on record any evidence, to indicate nexus of the transport company or the consignors of the tea with the contraband goods. In this case the contraband goods were kept under the two layers of tea bags and were covering the contraband goods.Mazda Chemicals v. CC (P) as reported at has held as under: 4. There is no denial to the fact that the gunny bags and the packages containing contraband goods were separate and the contraband were not concealed in these bags containing soda ash. The only thing was that in the truck both items were loaded where packages containing contraband articles were kept at the bottom and were "covered" by the said soda ash bags. For the purpose of attracting the provision of Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, there should be the articles that should have been used for the purpose of concealment of the smuggled goods. At the best the smuggled items in the truck were "covered" by the soda ash bags. The words "concealment" and "covering" have to be distinguished, when it comes to implementation of the provision of Section 119 of the Act and merely because they have been used for covering, the provision of Section 119 cannot stand attracted. There is no nexus established between the owners of the soda ash bags and owners of the smuggled goods. There is also no allegation that the appellants had directly or indirectly acquiesced to carry contraband goods in the truck, which was hired by them for transporting soda ash bags. From all these angles the approach of the authority below in invoking the provisions Section 119 of the Customs Act in relation to the soda ash bags does not appear to be correct. The order of confiscation in relation thereto cannot be sustained and is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
The ratio of the tribunal's decision in the case of Mazda Chemicals (supra) squarely covers the issue in this case. In view of the facts and circumstances I hold that the confiscation of the tea bags of Indian Origin as incorrect and unwarranted. The impugned order confiscating the Indian origin tea bags is set aside.
5. As regards the confiscation of the truck I find that the provisions of the Section 115(2) gets attracted and the confiscation is correct as the driver of the truck is a agent of the owner of the truck. Hence the confiscation of the truck is upheld, as it has been proved that the said conveyance was used for transporting the contraband goods.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, I hold that the confiscation of the Indian origin goods is not correct and the confiscation is set aside and hold that the confiscation of the truck is correct. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.