9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant based on statements of co-accused without independent corroborative evidence. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Calcutta. The appellant was not concerned with the confiscation of foreign origin goods but solely contested the penalty imposed on him. The incident leading to the penalty occurred when a truck was intercepted, resulting in the seizure of miscellaneous foreign origin goods and CTC Tea. Statements of various individuals indicated the appellant's involvement, leading to a search of his residential premises where more foreign goods and currency were found. Show cause notices were issued, culminating in the impugned Order by the Commissioner. The appellant's advocate argued that the penalty was based on statements of co-accused individuals and highlighted that the appellant was later arrested and interrogated in jail, but this information was not considered in the decision. The advocate contended that the statements implicating the appellant were hearsay and lacked independent corroboration, emphasizing that relying solely on co-accused statements is not sufficient for penalizing an individual. The adjudicating authority based the decision on statements that were not based on direct knowledge, as individuals mentioned the appellant's involvement based on information received from others. Upon reviewing the statements, the appellate tribunal found that all references to the appellant's involvement were based on hearsay evidence, lacking direct knowledge or independent corroboration. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's advocate that such evidence is weak and insufficient to hold the appellant guilty without additional support. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt, the tribunal set aside the imposition of the personal penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of direct evidence and independent corroboration in penalizing individuals, emphasizing that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to establish guilt. The tribunal's decision highlighted the need for strong, corroborated evidence before imposing penalties based on statements of co-accused individuals.
|
