REGENT TRAVELS COMPANY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal confiscated one bus No. WBY 4055 under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- only, vide paragraph 15(b) of the order. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged that order.

(2.) I have heard Shri Thawrani, learned advocate for the appellants and the learned JDR for the respondent. Shri Thawrani has stated that Regent Travels Company is a proprietory firm, whose proprietress is Smt. Gita Saha. The bus belongs to this firm. Smt. Saha gave her bus to M/s. Beduine Travels on a contract for 10 days from 24.10.1983 to 3.11.1983 for excursion tour to Nepal. Beduine Travels put two managers and 4 cooks in the bus. The owner of the bus put one driver (Shri Madan Bandopadhya), one cleaner (Shri Kedar Prasad Sahu) and one Assistant (Shri Basudev Saha) (as per the impugned order he is the manager of the appellants). Some passengers of the bus loaded contraband goods at Kathmandu under threat. Basudev Saha had put goods worth Rs. 400/-. The bus was intercepted by the Customs Officers at Uluberia. The smugglers ran away. The main smuggler was following in a car. He has been penalised vide para 15(2). Penalty of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on Shri Basudev Saha, but he has not filed any appeal. The learned advocate has argued that Smt. Gita Saha, the proprietress of the appellant-firm and the cleaner of the bus Shri Kedar Prasad Sahu have been totally exonerated by the Collector. Bus was not liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. He has also stated that the driver was illiterate and did not report to the Police that some passengers had loaded smuggled goods in the bus by threat. He has further argued that there is contradiction in the order of the Collector inasmuch as he had exonerated Smt. Gita Saha, but had confiscated the bus and that no rules have been framed about the precautions to be taken by the owner of the conveyance, his/her agent and the person-in-charge of the conveyance. According to the learned advocate, the bus is not, therefore, liable to confiscation. He has relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:-

(3.) I have considered the arguments of both sides. Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :-