2002 (1) TMI 442 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Evidence against the appellants regarding their involvement in the sale or purchase of smuggled goods.
3. Acquittal of one individual in criminal proceedings and its relevance to the penalty imposed.
4. Validity of the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by a co-accused.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellants filed appeals against the adjudication order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the recovery of 190 gold biscuits of foreign origin from a car driven by an individual, leading to the confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Evidence Against Appellants:
The appellants argued that there was no concrete evidence linking them to the sale or purchase of the smuggled goods apart from the statement made by the individual driving the car, which was not corroborated by independent evidence. The individual later retracted his statement, questioning its reliability. However, the learned JDR supported the findings of the lower authorities.

Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings:
The appellants cited the acquittal of one individual in criminal proceedings as a basis for their appeal, contending that it should lead to the appeal being allowed. However, the argument was countered with the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court emphasizing the distinction between liability in departmental proceedings and criminal court decisions.

Validity of Co-Accused Statement:
The statement made by a co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 played a crucial role in connecting the appellants to the contravention of customs provisions. The statement detailed the involvement of the appellants in the sale and purchase of the smuggled gold, and its retraction after two months did not diminish its evidentiary value. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112, albeit reducing it to Rs. 20,000 each considering the circumstances of the case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the final decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.