2000 (1) TMI 577 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled goods - Penalty - Loading of smuggled goods

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods

Imposition of Penalty:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants and the confiscation of plaster of paris belonging to them, with an option to redeem it on payment of a fine. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of plaster of paris and lime stone powder, had their goods intercepted by Customs Officers during transportation to Calcutta. The truck was found to contain miscellaneous foreign goods along with the intended goods. Statements from the driver, truck owner, and authorized representative of the transport company revealed ignorance about the contraband items loaded in the truck. The Commissioner held the appellants responsible for the smuggling due to the original loading at a specific premises. However, upon review, the judge found no evidence linking the appellants to the contraband items. Citing a previous decision, it was concluded that the provisions of Section 129 could not be applied if indigenous goods were used for mere coverage, not concealment. As no nexus was established between the plaster of paris owner and the smuggled goods, the order of confiscation was set aside, and the plaster of paris was ordered to be released to the appellants.

Confiscation of Goods:
Regarding the confiscation of the plaster of paris, the judge found no evidence indicating its use for concealing the foreign origin goods. Referring to a previous case, it was noted that the Act's provisions could not be invoked if indigenous goods were merely used for coverage. As no nexus was established between the plaster of paris owner and the smuggled goods, the order of confiscation was overturned, and the goods were ordered to be released to the appellants.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside as there was no evidence to suggest their involvement in the smuggling operation. The judge emphasized the lack of proof connecting the appellants to the contraband items and highlighted the distinction between concealment and coverage of smuggled goods. The decision to release the plaster of paris and revoke the penalty underscored the importance of establishing a direct link between the goods' owner and the illicit items for confiscation and penalty imposition.