2002 (10) TMI 474 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods of foreign origin under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation and redemption of the TATA Sumo vehicle under Section 115(2) and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Validity of the evidence and statements linking the appellant to the smuggled goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods of Foreign Origin:
The goods, including various types of silk yarn, silk fabrics, ball bearings, and rechargeable lanterns, were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Officers, acting on credible information, seized these goods from two premises in Bangalore. The goods were identified as being of foreign origin, with labels indicating they were made in China. The Director of the Central Silk Technological Research Institute confirmed that the silk samples appeared to be of foreign origin. The goods were confiscated based on their foreign markings and the lack of valid import documents.

2. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on three individuals: Rs. 50,00,000/- on Shri Syed Saleem, Rs. 20,00,000/- on Shri Asadullah Khan, and Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri Prashant Kumar Jain under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were based on their involvement in the possession, transport, and storage of the smuggled goods.

3. Confiscation and Redemption of TATA Sumo Vehicle:
The TATA Sumo vehicle used for transporting the smuggled goods was confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the vehicle was allowed to be redeemed by its owner, Shri S. Muralidharan, on payment of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Validity of Evidence and Statements Linking the Appellant:
The involvement of Shri Syed Saleem was primarily based on the statements of Shri Asadullah Khan and Shri Sheikh Abbas alias Babu. However, the tribunal found that there was no substantial evidence linking Shri Syed Saleem to the ownership or tenancy of the godowns where the goods were stored. No inquiries were made regarding the ownership of the godowns, the truck used for transporting the goods, or the mobile phone numbers allegedly used by Shri Syed Saleem. The tribunal concluded that the statements of co-accused without corroborative material could not be accepted as sufficient evidence to implicate Shri Syed Saleem. Consequently, the penalty imposed on Shri Syed Saleem was set aside.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Syed Saleem due to lack of substantial evidence linking him to the smuggled goods. The confiscation of the goods and the penalties on the other individuals were not contested in this appeal and thus were not addressed. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.