[Order]. - All the four appeals are arising out of the same judgment passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and against the same Order-in-Original by which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals. So, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard Shri K.K. Sanyal, ld. JDR for the Appellant-Revenue and Shri K.P. Dey, ld. Advocate along with Md. Usuf Ali Dewan, ld. Advocate for the Respondents.
3. Shri Sanyal submits that in the present case, the seizure had been effected on the basis of specific information at the time of seizure. The owner of the livestock and labours fled away and nobody came forward to claim the ownership of livestock which gives enough reason to believe that the goods are meant for smuggling. He submits that the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-57/0513 is also liable to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the driver had full knowledge that the livestock are meant for illegal export to Bangladesh through unauthorized route. The driver of the truck, Shri Prakash Raj Mollah admitted the facts. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the order-in-original may be restored.
4. In reply and in support of the Cross Objection, ld. Advocate, Shri Dey submits that there is no iota of evidence against the respondents for attempting to export the livestock, buffaloes to Bangladesh. Buffalo was seized 20 kms. away from the border while they were un-loaded from the truck. The driver of the truck did not disclose the basis of knowledge and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the buffaloes were meant for illegal export to Bangladesh. Under these circumstances, the truck cannot be seized. He relies on the decisions rendered in the cases of Rafahat Ali v. CC (Prev.), Patna reported in [ (Tri.) = 2002 (50) RLT 229 (CEGAT-Kol.)] & Ram Goyel v. CC (Prev.), West Bengal reported in [ (Tri.) = 2002 (50) RLT 228 (CEGAT-Kol.)]. He, therefore, submits that the appeals may be rejected.
5. In the present case, I find that there is no iota of evidence that the buffaloes were attempted to be smuggled out of India to Bangladesh. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, relied upon the statements of the driver, Shri Prakash Raj Mollah, but the driver had no personal knowledge or information regarding the export of buffaloes to Bangladesh. The adjudicating authority has observed in his order that “the driver also stated that as per his knowledge the livestock was meant to be taken to Bangladesh.” But the driver never disclosed the source of knowledge, even the driver was not knowing the ownership of the livestock nor the labourers who had loaded and un-loaded the buffaloes. The driver had no conversation with the owner of the baffaloes or with the labourers. The attempt to illegal export would arise if the goods were intercepted while enroute the border point or in vicinity of border point. In the present case, the livestock and vehicle were seized 20 kms. away from the border. The seizure was made on suspicion that the goods might be exported to Bangaladesh illegally. The buffaloes were un-loaded at Jangipur 20 Kms away from the border. This may be a case for preparation for smuggling but it cannot be said that it was an attempt to export the goods out of India. Similar view was expressed in the case of Ram Goyel v. CC (Prev.), West Bengal reported in [ (Tri.) = 2002 (50) RLT 228 (CEGAT-Kol.)]. Under these circumstances, the truck is not liable to be confiscated. Similar view was expressed in the case of Rafahat Ali v. CC (Prev.), Patna reported in [ (Tri.) - 2002 (50) RLT 229 (CEGAT-Kol.)]. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). All the appeals filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.
6. Consequently, I dismiss all the appeals. Accordingly, Cross Objection also gets disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Court.