##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

ALLAHABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.II

Customs Appeal No.70079 of 2024

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.935-937-Cus/Appl/LKO/2022 dated

11/04/2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise &

Service Tax, Lucknow)

M/s Om Prakash Madheshiya, …..Appellant

(New Main Road, Singhai Khurd,

PS-Sampurna Nagar, Lakhimpur Khiri)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Lucknow ….Respondent

(Vibhuti Nagar, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010)

APPEARANCE

Shri Nagendra Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.70038/2026

DATE OF HEARING : 03 February, 2026

DATE OF DECISION : 03 February, 2026

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 935-

937-Cus/Appl/LKO/2022 dated 11/04/2022 passed by

Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Lucknow. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has

held as follows:-

“5. I have gone through the case records. By the

impugned order, confiscation of smuggled Peas & the

vehicle was ordered under Section 111(b)& 115(2) of the

Customs Act, 1962 respectively and penalties were also

imposed upon the appellants U/s 112 of the Act.

2 Customs Appeal No.70079 of 2024

I find from the records that the recovery of the smuggled

peas from the vehicle No. UP-31 /AT-4492 has not been

disputed as Shri Rakesh Kumar Nishad, the appellant no.1

(Driver & Owner of the seized vehicle) & Shri Rohit (Helper

of the seized vehicle) failed to provide any documentary

evidences such as invoices, bill of entry, etc for proper

importation of said goods as the same were intercepted

from a place which is close to Indo-Nepal Border Pillar

No.764/5 on 05.10.2020 and both of them accepted vide

their statement dated 05.10.2020 recorded vide Section

108 of the Act that they had no connection with the seized

peas. Shri Rakesh Kumar Nishad categorically accepted

that the said consignment was loaded near Sampoorna

Nagar, by the person whom he don’t know, destined to

Lakhimpur Mandi. Later, while adjudicating the instant

case, both the appellants submitted written submissions

during the personal hearing on 24.08.2021 and submitted

that the said consignment had all valid importation

documents and Mr. Om Prakash Madhesiya, the appellant

no.3, was the owner of the said consignment. I find that

the these facts are contradictory to each other. I also find

that the claimed owner of the goods came into picture

after lapse of more than a year and the adjudicating

authority has discussed the same in length in Para 20 of

the impugned order. In view of this I find that the said

consignment was rightly seized under Section 110 of the

Act. From the facts of the case as discussed in the O-in-O,

it can be safely deduced that the adjudicating authority

has rightly confiscated the said goods for violating the

provisions of Section 11 of the Act read with Notification

No.9/96-CUS(N.T.) dated 22.01.1996, Section 7(1)(c)of

the Act &. Notification No.63/94-CUS(N.T.) dated

21.11.1994. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle was

indeed used in illegal transportation of the smuggled peas.

and to that extent I uphold the confiscation of the said

vehicle under Section 115(2) of the Act.

3 Customs Appeal No.70079 of 2024

In respect of the penalties imposed on the appellants

under Section 112 of the Customs Act,1962, I find that all

the appellants were fully involved ir the entire operation of

attempted smuggling, the appellant no.1 & 2 gave

contradictory statements recorded under Section 108 of

the Act indicating that they were not coming out with truth

and something to hide in the illegal importation of the said

consignment, the appellant no. 3 did not provide any

documentary evidence of local procurement of the said

goods, leading to hold that the adjudicating authority has

rightly imposed penalty invoking the provision of Section

112 of the Act against them in the impugned order, to

w