2001 (10) TMI 418 - AT - Customs

Statement before Revenue officers at Night - Smuggling - Confiscation of conveyance - Confiscation - Seizure - Jurisdiction -

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of statements recorded at night
- Retraction of statements
- Identification of goods as smuggled
- Jurisdiction of confiscation order
- Order of penalty subsequent to confiscation order

Admissibility of statements recorded at night:
The judgment addresses the argument that statements recorded at night are inadmissible in law. The Tribunal rejects this contention, stating that there is no legal prohibition against recording statements at night. The judgment highlights that the time of recording does not render a statement illegal, and the claim that individuals are not in a proper state of mind at night is unfounded. The Tribunal emphasizes that the legality of a statement is not determined by the time it was recorded. Additionally, the judgment distinguishes a previous case where a statement recorded at night was deemed involuntary, but clarifies that the mere fact of recording at night does not render a statement inadmissible.

Retraction of statements:
The judgment discusses the retraction of statements made by the appellants. The Tribunal notes that the appellants failed to provide evidence or support for the claim that the statements were retracted promptly. Furthermore, the judgment highlights the corroboration of the statements by other individuals involved in the case, indicating that the admissions made in the statements were supported by additional evidence. The lack of substantial evidence for the retraction of statements weakens the appellants' argument.

Identification of goods as smuggled:
The judgment addresses the argument that the goods carried by the trawlers were not identified as smuggled or of foreign origin. The Tribunal dismisses this contention, emphasizing that the manner in which the goods were transported from the sea into India indicated unauthorized importation. Despite the lack of explicit proof of foreign origin, the Tribunal concludes that the goods were liable to confiscation due to their illegal transportation routes. The judgment clarifies that the absence of established foreign origin does not negate the liability for confiscation.

Jurisdiction of confiscation order:
The judgment examines the jurisdiction of the confiscation order, particularly concerning the location of the seizure of goods. The appellants argued that the goods were seized in Maharashtra, beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in Goa. The Tribunal rejects this argument, stating that even if the goods were seized in Maharashtra, they would still be liable to confiscation due to the illegal importation process. The judgment underscores that the location of seizure does not impact the confiscation of goods transported through unauthorized routes.

Order of penalty subsequent to confiscation order:
The judgment discusses the sequence of the penalty order in relation to the confiscation order. The appellants contended that the penalty order issued after the confiscation order was improper. However, the Tribunal finds no legal prohibition against such a sequence of orders. While acknowledging that it may not be ideal, the judgment asserts that there is no legal impediment to imposing penalties subsequent to confiscation orders. The Tribunal upholds the Additional Commissioner's order, deeming it well-reasoned and confirming the confiscation of the trawler and the penalties imposed on the appellants.