2002 (1) TMI 491 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of personal penalties on various individuals for involvement in smuggling activities, confiscation of seized gold bars and vehicle, validity of evidence and corroboration in penalizing the accused, and setting aside penalties imposed on appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata addressed the imposition of personal penalties on individuals involved in smuggling activities, confiscation of seized gold bars and a vehicle, and the validity of evidence in penalizing the accused. The appeals arose from an order by the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong imposing penalties on various individuals. The Customs Officers intercepted a vehicle and found gold bars concealed in the shoes of one passenger, leading to subsequent statements admitting ownership and involvement by the individuals. However, searches at various premises did not yield incriminating evidence. The show cause notice culminated in the imposition of penalties and confiscation, which was challenged in the appeal.

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the representatives of the appellants and the Revenue. It was observed that the Commissioner had not discussed the evidence showing the involvement of the individuals in the seized gold bars. The Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence implicating some of the appellants, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on them. Regarding the confiscation of the vehicle, it was noted that although registered in one person's name, it was being used by another for smuggling activities. The Tribunal provided an option for the release of the vehicle on payment of a redemption fine, remanding the matter for fixing the fine amount.

In the case of other individuals penalized based on statements of a co-accused without corroborating evidence, the Tribunal held that uncorroborated statements cannot be the sole basis for penalties. Therefore, the personal penalties on these individuals were set aside. In conclusion, all penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for determining the redemption fine for the release of the vehicle.