2017 (10) TMI 1437 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation - smuggling or not - seizure of Bullock and Cattle - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - Nobody claimed the seized cattle. The circumstantial evidences would show that the driver of the vehicle fled away while the vehicle was being intercepted by the BSF. The driver of the vehicle had not given any statement on the procurement of the seized cattle. Thus it is clearly evident that the said vehicle was carrying the cattle for attempted illegal illicit export to Bangladesh. Hence the submission of the Ld. Counsel on this issue has no effect. In the present case it is seen that the driver of the vehicle ran away on seeing the BSF patrol party. It appears that the driver the agent of the owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the illegal transport of smuggled goods. So confiscation of the vehicle is justified - Penalty not justified - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of seized cattle and carrier vehicle, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Seized Cattle and Carrier Vehicle:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, confiscating 19 bullocks and the carrier vehicle under Sections 113(b) and 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, owner of the vehicle, argued that there was no evidence linking him to the alleged illegal activity and that the burden of proof lay with the department regarding the seizure of bullocks for illegal export. However, the tribunal noted that no one claimed the seized cattle, and circumstantial evidence indicated an attempt to illegally export the cattle to Bangladesh. The tribunal found that the driver fleeing the scene during interception by BSF implied knowledge of the illegal activity, justifying the confiscation of the vehicle.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The adjudicating authority had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 14 of the Act on the appellant. The appellant argued that the penalties were arbitrary as there was no evidence of his involvement in the illegal export attempt. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that there was no material on record proving the appellant's knowledge of the attempted illegal export of cattle. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, modifying the impugned order to that extent.

Conclusion:
The tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant while upholding the confiscation of the carrier vehicle due to the driver's knowledge of the illegal activity. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the judgment pronounced on 30-10-2017 by Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata.