ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The appellant is absent in spite of today’s notice of hearing having been sent to him. Accordingly I have heard Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Patna vide which he has confiscated the jeep belonging to the appellant with an option to him to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon him. The prayer in the stay petition is for dispensing with the condition of the said penalty amount.
2. It is seen that the jeep at the time of interception was being driven by the appellant’s driver. The appellant has submitted during the course of adjudication that he was earning his livelihood by playing the said jeep as a taxi and he was not aware of the fact that the goods being transported in the said jeep were contraband items, inasmuch as it was the driver who engaged the jeep for the transportation. He has also submitted before the adjudicating authority that the driver was absconding from the date of interception by the police and his efforts to find him have not succeeded. He however provided the address of his driver.
3. The above plea of the appellant has not been accepted by the adjudicating authority by observing that he had tried to defend his driver and has not been able to produce him before authorities and he has also failed to appear for personal hearing. As such he has concluded that he was convinced that the appellant has rendered himself liable to penal action.
4. However, I find that the above reasoning adopted by the ld. adjudicating authority cannot be held to be sufficient for penalising the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was aware of the fact of his jeep being used for transportation of contraband items. The appellant had provided the address of the driver and if the driver absconded, the appellant cannot be held to be responsible for the same and his mala fide intention cannot be arrived at on the basis of the said fact. In the absence of any other evidence on record I am of the view that prima facie the appellant is not liable to penal action. Accordingly I allow the stay petition unconditionally and fix the main appeal on 24-2-2003.