ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. As per the facts on record, one truck was intercepted by the Customs on 7-7-96 and was found to contain six numbers of gunny bags of Silk Yarn of foreign origin. As the driver and cleaner or the other persons sitting in the truck could not produce any documents showing legal importation of the Yarns, the same were seized by the Officers. During the course of investigations, statement of Shri Basudev Banerjee, driver of the truck, was recorded, wherein he deposed that he was not a regular driver of the vehicle in question and was asked by one Shri Joynarayan Dutta to drive the vehicle for one day for which he was to be paid a sum of Rs. 100.00 (Rupees one hundred) as remuneration. He submits that when the goods were being loaded, Shri Dilip Mondal was standing near the truck and Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta introduced him to Shri Dilip Mondal. He submits that he had no knowledge about the owner of the Silk Yarn in question and only Dilip Mondal was aware of the same.
2. Shri Kush Ghosh, cleaner of the vehicle confirmed the statement of Shri Basudev Banerjee and deposed that he had no knowledge about the smuggling of the same or about the actual owner of the goods.
3. Statements of Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta, Joynarayan Dutta and Habul Mondal were also recorded. Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta denied his involvement in the Silk Yarn and clarified that the truck in question belonged to his brother, Shri Joynarayan Dutta who also denied his knowledge about the loading of the Silk Yarn in the said truck and stated that he had directed his driver to bring sand from Sainthia and to sell the same at Karimpur.
4. I find that the show cause notices were issued to various persons proposing confiscation of the Yarn in question and for imposition of personal penalties. As nobody claimed the ownership of the Yarn in question, the same was confiscated absolutely by the adjudicating authority. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) was imposed on each of the captioned appellants.
5. It is seen that Shri Basudev Banerjee is the driver of the truck and Shri Kush Ghosh is the khalasi. Both the persons have, in their on-the-spot statement, denied that they were aware of the Silk Yarn in question being of smuggled character. The adjudicating authority has observed that the said appellants have stated about their knowledge of the goods being of foreign origin. It has been argued that the same is not sufficient and it is also necessary that the driver and the khalasi should know that the Yarn in question was of smuggled character. Being illiterate persons, it is not possible for the driver and the khalasi to call for the import documents and satisfy themselves about the legal character of the goods being loaded in the truck. Shri Joynarayan Dutta is the owner of the vehicle and penalty has been imposed upon him by observing that he has failed to take sufficient precaution to prevent misuse of his vehicle for transportation of smuggled goods. Shri Rabin-dra Nath Dutta has been held by the adjudicating authority to be the owner of the goods in question. It is seen that the penalty on Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta is based upon the statement of the driver and the khalasi, indicating that Shri Dutta is the owner of the Yarn in question. Apart from the fact that the said statements are in the nature of statements of the co-accused, I find that there is no other evidence on record to reflect upon the fact that Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta is the owner of the Yarn in question. He has denied his involvement in the said Yarn, in his statement. The same very statements of the driver and the khalasi which have been made the basis for penalising the appellant in question, have not been found sufficient by the adjudicating authority to penalise other persons named in the said statements. While exonerating the other persons, the adjudicating authority has observed that there is no independent evidence adduced by the Department. As such, it is not understood as to how the same very statement, without any independent corroboration, could be made the basis for penalising Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta.
6. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the penalties imposed upon the appellants, were not justified.
7. As regards the confiscation of the truck in question, Shri Joynara-yan Dutta has been given option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000.00 (Rupees thirty thousand) only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the above redemption fine to a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand). All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.