2003 (5) TMI 300 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of oxytetracycline and base oil, imposition of penalty.
2. Admissibility of statements made before Central Excise officers.
3. Allegation against Kiran Dharamshi.
4. Justification of confiscation of goods in all drums.

Analysis:

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty:
The appeal challenges the order confiscating oxytetracycline and base oil, along with the penalty imposed. The consignment declared as base oil was found to contain tetracycline in some drums. The appellant admitted to ordering the import of these goods, including tetracycline. The Commissioner based the decision on these admissions. The contention that statements made before Central Excise officers cannot be used against the appellant was rejected. Even if the officers did not have specific Customs Act powers, the statements were deemed admissible as evidence. The appellant's admission was considered voluntary and true, as he did not retract it or claim coercion.

Admissibility of Statements:
The appellant argued that statements made before Central Excise officers should not be considered. However, the Tribunal deemed these statements admissible as evidence, akin to admissions made to a private individual. The appellant's failure to disavow the statements or prove coercion rendered them valid. The appellant's history as an importer further supported the credibility of the statements.

Allegation Against Kiran Dharamshi:
The appellant alleged that Kiran Dharamshi was the actual culprit, not him. However, this claim was not substantiated. While Kiran Dharamshi's role might affect his penalty, it did not absolve the appellant of importing and declaring the goods.

Confiscation Justification:
The argument that only some drums contained tetracycline, justifying confiscation of all drums, was upheld. The Tribunal accepted that concealing tetracycline in a few drums aimed to mislead Customs officers during random inspections. As inspections were done on a percentage basis, the presence of tetracycline in some drums indicated an attempt to deceive. Therefore, confiscating all drums was deemed reasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal against confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and other contentions was dismissed by the Tribunal.