Tusks Found In Driver’s Cabin, Tea In Rear: CESTAT Sets Aside Confiscation And Penalties Against Exporter, Transporter

M.K. Saha Exports Ltd. arranged for 660 packages of tea from its Assam tea estates to be transported to Kolkata by South Assam Roadways.

On 2 January 2019, DRI officers intercepted the truck and recovered four elephant tusks from an old bag in the driver’s cabin; the tea was in the rear carrier.

The driver stated that he was carrying the tusks for a separate payment at the direction of identified third parties, without implicating either appellant.

The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the tea under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, offered redemption on payment of a fine, and imposed penalties of ₹3 lakh on each appellant under Section 114. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeals.

The appellants challenged those findings before the Tribunal.

Section 119 of the Customs Act permits confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled goods; the provision requires a factual connection between the goods sought to be confiscated and the act of concealment, and mere presence in the same conveyance is insufficient.

Section 114 provides for penalty in relation to goods liable to confiscation under Section 113; penalty requires an act or omission attributable to the person concerned and cannot be imposed merely on the basis of ownership of goods or a transporter’s role where the necessary participation is not established.

The appellants cited Kool International, Harbans Singh Narula and Concord Maritime and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.; the Tribunal’s decision, however, rests on its assessment of the statutory requirements and the evidence in this case.

The tusks were recovered from the driver’s cabin, while the tea was carried in the rear of the truck, and there was no finding that the tea packages concealed or physically shielded the tusks.

The driver’s immediate statement identified the persons who arranged and were to receive the tusks, but did not implicate either appellant; the statements and call records likewise disclosed no connection between the appellants and the driver or the identified third parties.

The Tribunal also found that the tea transport was supported by commercial documentation and that the appellants’ explanations concerning the vehicle changes and waybill discrepancies were not displaced by evidence linking those matters to the tusks.

The tea’s carriage in the same truck, without evidence of concealment or knowing participation, did not satisfy the statutory basis for confiscation or penalty.

It set aside the confiscation of the tea, the redemption fine and the penalties under Section 114; it directed that the redemption fine already recovered be refunded with interest and allowed consequential relief, if any, according to law.