2001 (9) TMI 1058 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the two appellants by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow.
2. Allegations of smuggling of goods against the two appellants.
3. Corroborative evidence connecting the appellants with the recovery/seizure of contraband.
4. Validity of the impugned order.
5. Reduction of penalty amount imposed on one of the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on one appellant and Rs. 50,000 on another appellant based on a common order-in-original dated 27-10-2000. The penalty was imposed in connection with the recovery of 40 bags of cardamom of foreign origin from a truck intercepted by Customs Officers near Bareilly. The seized goods were linked to the appellants through statements made by individuals involved in the transportation of the goods.

2. The appellants denied their involvement with the seized goods during the investigation. However, statements made by the driver and one of the appellants implicated the other appellant as the owner of the goods. The Commissioner found the allegations against both appellants to be proved under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, leading to the imposition of penalties and absolute confiscation of the seized goods.

3. The appellants argued that there was no corroborative evidence connecting them to the recovery/seizure of the contraband. However, the statements of individuals involved in the transportation of the goods were considered by the adjudicating authority as reliable and unchallenged. The appellants failed to provide any evidence contradicting the statements linking them to the seized goods.

4. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner, stating that the reasons for holding both appellants guilty under Section 112 of the Customs Act were detailed and well-founded. The subsequent denial by one of the appellants regarding involvement was deemed as an afterthought and disregarded by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. Considering the circumstances and the absolute confiscation of the goods, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on one appellant from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the other appellant was deemed reasonable and maintained. The impugned order of the Commissioner was upheld, and the appeals of the appellants were dismissed, except for the modification in the penalty amount for one of the appellants.