9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against the imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. - Allegations of involvement in smuggling activities and contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. - Retraction of statements made under duress and coercion. - Lack of independent evidence supporting the allegations. - Excessive penalty amount imposed. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal challenging the imposition of a personal penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, related to allegations of involvement in smuggling activities and contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The case involved the appellant being implicated by another individual, Peter David, who was found with contraband gold at Sahar Air Port Bombay. The appellant was accused of facilitating the transportation of the gold outside the airport. Both individuals were detained under COFEPOSA for several months. The appellant argued that his statement was obtained under duress and coercion, and he retracted it while in judicial custody. However, the Customs authorities maintained that the penalty was justified based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice and criminal jurisdiction in adjudication proceedings. It was noted that while accomplices' evidence can be considered, corroboration is essential. The appellant's role in assisting Peter David in transporting the gold was scrutinized. The appellant claimed innocence and stated that he had no knowledge of the smuggling activities. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the common understanding among the appellant, Peter David, and another individual, Antony Joseph, regarding the alleged smuggling activities. The appellant's explanation regarding the seized amount belonging to his wife was accepted, strengthening his case. Regarding the retraction of statements, the Tribunal analyzed the circumstances of the appellant's detention and the delay in retracting the statements. It was observed that the appellant's retraction lacked clarity and specificity, and no formal complaints were made against the alleged coercion. The Tribunal upheld the discussion in the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of independent evidence supporting the appellant's claims of innocence. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to modify the impugned order by reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 4,500, which had already been adjusted. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's prolonged suspension and financial struggles, concluding that the penalty should be reduced to the adjusted amount. The rest of the impugned order was confirmed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
