Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 763 - CESTAT KOLKATAConfiscation of seized truck u/s 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - levy of penalty - owner of the consignment has not come forward to claim the ownership and to claim the goods - Department has not adduced any corroborative evidence to the effect that the owner of the vehicle (the present appellant) was directly or indirectly involved in the alleged smuggling activities - HELD THAT:- It is found that after the goods have been seized, the other noticees have not proceeded further against the confiscation, redemption fine and the penalty imposed on them. The Department has confiscated beatul Nut of Rs.8,80,000/-. From the records, it is not clear as to whether the same has been auctioned off and value has been realized since the noticee has not forward to redeem the same. In the present case it is seen that only the present appellant has proceeded with appeals. It is found that the Department has not come with any proper evidence to the effect that owner of the vehicle was in any way involved in the alleged smuggling activities. However, the appellant cannot completely plead ignorance when his vehicle was used for transportation of the smuggled goods without any document. Considering the factual details and the financial condition of the appellant, the redemption fine reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
|