A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated December 13, 1989 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay in appeal No. C/552/88-Bom. produced at annexure D to the petition. Truck bearing No. GRR-3160 was owned by the petitioner. The said truck was intercepted by police on April 29,1987 at Veraval where it was lying parked in abandoned condition. On search of the truck the police found contraband goods valued at Rs. 2,29,77,030/- (Rupees two crores twenty nine lakhs seventy seven thousand and thirty only) concealed along with 150 bags of dry fish powder. The contraband goods were wrist watches, watch cells and micro computers components etc. The police seized the contraband articles and also seized truck. It was found by the Customs department that the petitioner had permitted the truck to be used for transport of contraband goods and he was also involved in the said incident. Hence a show cause notice dated October 15,1987 was served upon him to remain present before the authority concerned. In the adjudication proceedings which followed pursuant to show cause notice, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Ahmedabad, held that the truck was liable to be confiscated and ordered absolute confiscation. The Collector further held that the petitioner was concerned with the said activity and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh as provided under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before CEGAT. The CEG AT dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, while dismissing the appeal, it modified the order as regards personal penalty and as regard absolute confiscation of the truck. The Tribunal passed the final order as follows:"in the result, we modify the order of the Collector of Customs to the extent that the personal penalty imposed is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and instead of absolute confiscation of the truck, the appellant is given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only ). He shall exercise this option within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the order of absolute confiscation will survive. "this judgment and order was passed by CEGAT on December 13,1989. ( 3 ) ). 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only ). He shall exercise this option within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the order of absolute confiscation will survive. "this judgment and order was passed by CEGAT on December 13,1989. ( 3 ) ). On January 12, 1990, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petition was admitted on January 15, 1990 by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: G. T. Nanavati, j. as he then was and J. U. Mehta, J. ). Initially this court granted ad interim relief and restrained the respondents from recovering the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the court passed interim order as follows: "interim stay of operation of the order passed by the Tribunal at anncxure d to the petition in so far as it pertains to imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50. 000/- on the condition that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 10. 000/- and security of immovable property to the tune of Rs. 40. 000/- to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. It is stated by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the respondent and therefore if that fact is corrcctd then the authority will have to release the truck on the petitioner depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 25. 000/-" ( 4 ) ). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad had invoked the provisions of Section 115 (2) of the Act. On the basis of this provision, the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of proof that the vehicle in question was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent, if any. In his submission, the collector was not right in raising presumption. However, the Tribunal has not rested its decision on this statutory presumption above raised in Section 115 of the Act. The tribunal has given elaborate reasons while confirming the decision of the Collector of customs (Preventive ). In his submission, the collector was not right in raising presumption. However, the Tribunal has not rested its decision on this statutory presumption above raised in Section 115 of the Act. The tribunal has given elaborate reasons while confirming the decision of the Collector of customs (Preventive ). In paras 11 to 14 of the judgment, reasons arc given by the cegat in support of its conclusion that the vehicle in question was used in the activity of smuggling contraband goods with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner. In this connection, the Tribunal has referred to the statement of the petitioner himself recorded on May 11,1987. In the said statement, the petitioner had stated as follows:"on the morning of 29th April 1987 at about 7. 30 A. M. I got a phone call from neice Smt. Farukh Begum the wife of Mansur Sayed and she informed me that my truck had been seized at Veraval so I asked her for the details but she was not able to give any satisfactory answer. ""this news came as a big shock to me as I have never over in my life experience much humiliation and disgrace and I did not know how and with what face I would be able to face my own family and the people around where 1 have enjoyed always tremendous respect. At that moment it was most sacrificing and shameful and I just could not reconcile to the fact that Mansur would play such dirty and disgusting trick on me. With shameful face and disguessed I walked down to Rani Baug to get some satisfying and reassuring reply. ""i came to Junagadh and tried to secure some transport to leave for Bombay. I was in such depressed situation that I wanted to be in a place where I could sit down and think. So I had to proceed to Rajkot so that I would be in time to catch the Luxury bus for Bombay, which leaves at around 4. 00 P. M. on 29th april, 1987. "in his statement dt. 12. 5. 87 he states:"i reached Bombay on the morning of 30. 4. 87 via Luxury bus from Rajkot I straight went to my office cum residence at 25 Sadhna B Road, Church Gate. 00 P. M. on 29th april, 1987. "in his statement dt. 12. 5. 87 he states:"i reached Bombay on the morning of 30. 4. 87 via Luxury bus from Rajkot I straight went to my office cum residence at 25 Sadhna B Road, Church Gate. My and my families Air Tickets were booked for Calcutta on 8th May 1987, so i got my ticket and got it endorsed for 1st May for Calcutta. "on the basis of the aforesaid statement, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was evading investigation and interrogation. Therefore he went away by getting his ticket antidated to may 1, 1987 from May 8, 1987 as was originally booked. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that he had not gone to Calcutta on account of any urgent call from Tea garden. In our opinion, the inference drawn by the Tribunal cannot be said to be in anyway perverse or even erroneous. This inference is based on evidence which is in the shape of the statement of the petitioner himself. The Tribunal has rightly noted that the admissions made by the petitioner in his. statement have never been retracted. The petitioner never even alleged that the statement was made by him under duress or coercion. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner left mangrol for Bombay and then-went to Calcutta Be it noted that Mangrol is at a distance of 40 t0 50 K. ms. from Veraval which was the place of seizure of truck. On the very day of seizure of the truck i. e. April 29,1987, the petitioner came to know about the seizure of the truck. This he knew through phone call from his neice Smt. Farukh Begum who is the wife of Mansur to whom he had entrusted the truck. Even after knowing about the seizure of the truck, he did not rush to Veraval and did not inquire about the truck and about the activity of Mansur to whom he had entrusted the truck. His conduct of going away to bombay and then to Calcutta has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that this is not a relevant piece of evidence. The subsequent conduct of a person involved in any incident is certainly relevant. His conduct of going away to bombay and then to Calcutta has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that this is not a relevant piece of evidence. The subsequent conduct of a person involved in any incident is certainly relevant. The tribunal has committed no error in taking into consideration this subsequent conduct of the petitioner. If one takes into consideration this subsequent conduct together with the statutory provisions of Section 115 of the Act, by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the Tribunal has committed error in appreciating the evidence or has appreciated the evidence otherwise than in accordance with the established principles of law as regards appreciation of evidence. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is, therefore, eminently just and proper. ( 5 ) ). Even if one were to come to the conclusion that two views are possible and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, one could come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the activity of transporting contraband goods through the vehicle owned by him, then also it would not be open to us to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal This is so because we are exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. However, we may hasten to add that, in our opinion, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is in no way erroneous so as to call for interference even if we were to reappreciate the evidence. ( 6 ) ). We have been taken through the judgments and orders passed by the Collector of customs (Preventive) as well as that of the Tribunal. We have been taken through other relevant record also. From the proved and/or admitted facts and circumstances of the case, one can reasonably infer that the petitioner had knowledge about the user of the truck in the smuggling activities. These facts and circumstances may be briefly noted: (1) It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was the owner of the truck in question. It was the petitioner who entrusted the truck to Mansur for plying the same allegedly for the purpose of transporting cement; (2) On April 29,1987, the truck was intercepted by the Police somewhere near veraval. These facts and circumstances may be briefly noted: (1) It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was the owner of the truck in question. It was the petitioner who entrusted the truck to Mansur for plying the same allegedly for the purpose of transporting cement; (2) On April 29,1987, the truck was intercepted by the Police somewhere near veraval. The police found contraband articles such as wrist watches, watch cells, micro computer components etc, worth Rs. 2,29,77,030/- concealed along with 150 bags of dry fish powder, (3) The petitioner knew about the seizure of the truck and the contraband goods on the very same day of seizure through a telephone call from his neice Smt. Farukh Begum, who is the wife of Mansur. At the time when received intimation about the seizure of the truck, he was at Mangrol which is a place at a distance of 40 to 50 kms. from Veraval from where the truck was seized; (4) After receipt of information about the seizure of the truck, the petitioner did not go to Veraval or did not even try to contact Mansur to whom the truck was entrusted by him. The petitioner, instead, went to Bombay via Rajkot and that too by a Luxury bus. From Bombay, he went to Calcutta by advancing air ticket to May 1,1987 as the original tickets were for May 8, 1987. Thereafter he made himself available for interrogation and statement on May 11,1987; (5) In the statement he has made certain admissions which have been recorded by the Tribunal. The statement has not been retracted nor it is even alleged that the statement was made under coercion or duress. (6) He instructed his family members to give false information as regards his whereabout since April 27,1987. If one were to take cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, an irresistible inference could be drawn that the petitioner knew that the vehicle owned by him was being used in smuggling activities. Thus even without the aid of statutory presumption under Section 115 (2) of the Act, one would be justified in reaching the conclusion that the petitioner knew about the user of the truck in transporting contraband goods. rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal latest by February 28,1995. .