1. Appeal against tribunal order reducing redemption fine for confiscation of a truck containing contraband goods under the Customs Act, 1962. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 917
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : S.C.Agrawal
Kripal Singh
Versus
Collector Of Customs (Preventive) , Patna
Case No. : 5538 of 1994
Date of Decision : 9/1/98
Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of a vehicle used for transporting contraband must prove that the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation or the imposition of a redemption fine.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130-E - Maintainability of appeal - Appeal against tribunal's order reducing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of vehicle - Maintainability of appeal under Section 130-E is limited to judgments relating to the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods for the purpose of assessment - Where the impugned judgment does not relate to such matters, the appeal is not maintainable.
(B) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 115(2) - Confiscation of vehicle - Redemption fine - Burden of proof - To avoid confiscation or the imposition of a redemption fine, the owner of the vehicle must prove that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, their agent, or the person in charge of the vehicle at the time contraband goods were found.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a tribunal's judgment which reduced the redemption fine for the confiscation of a truck from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 130-E, as the matter did not pertain to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the preliminary objection regarding maintainability. However, upon examining the merits, it was determined that the appellant failed to prove, as required under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, that the truck was used without their knowledge or connivance when the contraband goods were discovered.
Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable under Section 130-E and whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof under Section 115(2) to show the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proof lies with the owner of the vehicle to establish that the vehicle was used for transporting contraband without their knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation or the imposition of a redemption fine.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent challenged maintainability under Section 130-E; Appellant contested the reduction of the redemption fine for the confiscated vehicle. (Para 1 )
3. The court found the maintainability objection meritorious and noted the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance. (Para 1 )
4. Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner must prove the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 1 )
6. When is an appeal maintainable under Section 130-E of the Customs Act?
An appeal is maintainable under Section 130-E if the impugned judgment relates to the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. (Para 1 )
7. What is the requirement for a vehicle owner to avoid confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962?
The owner must prove that at the time contraband goods were found in the vehicle, it was being used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, their agent, or the person in charge of the vehicle. (Para 1 )
(1) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, East Regional bench, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) dated 18/03/1994 whereby the tribunal has reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation of the truck of the appellant from Rs. 50,000.00 as imposed by the Additional Collector to a sum of Rs. 25,000.00. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent against the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that in view of Section 130-E an appeal does not lie in this Court because the impugned judgment of the tribunal does not relate to the rate of duty of customs to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. Although, we find merit in the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent but we have also examined the matter on merits in order to consider whether it was a case in which we may grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the tribunal and we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in that regard. We find that no case is made out for interference by this court with the impugned orders relating to confiscation of the truck of the appellant and the imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation in the facts of this case since the appellant has failed to prove, as required under Section 115(2 of the Customs Act, 1962, that at the time when the contraband goods were found in the truck it was being used without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant/his agent or the person in-charge of the said truck. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
