1999 (5) TMI 562 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty on the appellant for involvement in purchasing/selling and transporting of smuggled goods.

In this case, the appellant was aggrieved by the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, based on the appellant's alleged involvement in purchasing/selling and transporting ball bearings and video cassettes of foreign origin recovered from a tractor trolley. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant was one of the three persons on the trolley at the time of interception and had fled the scene. The appellant denied involvement, arguing that neither of the detained individuals stated he was with them, and that key statements linking him to the offense were inadmissible hearsay. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the smuggling activities, urging for the penalty to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the statements linking the appellant to the offense were unreliable and inadmissible as evidence. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the statement indicating the goods were to be handed over to a person named Babu Khan did not conclusively establish the appellant as Babu Khan. Moreover, the absence of identification of the appellant as the person fleeing the scene or as the intended recipient of the goods further weakened the case against him. The counsel emphasized that the available evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities, advocating for the penalty to be revoked.

On the other hand, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the police report indicated the appellant's presence on the tractor trolley, justifying the imposed penalty. However, the appellate tribunal carefully analyzed the submissions and evidence presented. They noted that the statement indicating the goods' intended recipient, Babu Khan, was inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted the lack of identification linking the appellant to the offense, as well as the absence of crucial details in the Fard Report to establish the appellant's involvement. Ultimately, the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to hold the appellant accountable for the smuggling activities, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.