2003 (12) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty and confiscation under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations:
The appellant was intercepted with Indian and foreign currency, suspected to be proceeds from smuggled gold biscuits. Confiscation of currency and two cars, along with a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, was imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant contested the charges, claiming false implication and coercion in obtaining the alleged confessional statement.

2. Evidence and Witness Testimonies:
The panchnama regarding currency recovery was prepared at the DRI office, not at the interception spot, raising doubts. Witnesses did not confirm the recovery from the appellant's car. Lack of corroboration from key individuals like Puran Singh and Raja weakened the case.

3. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The appellant's counsel argued insufficient evidence linking the currency to smuggled gold. Reference was made to the conditions outlined in the Ramchandra case for proving violations under Section 121 of the Customs Act.

4. Judicial Findings:
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in witness statements and the absence of crucial corroborative evidence. The confessional statement, retracted by the appellant, lacked support. Lack of examination of Puran Singh and Raja, coupled with procedural irregularities in evidence collection, undermined the case against the appellant.

5. Conclusion and Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. Confiscation of currency, gold biscuit, and cars, along with the penalty, was deemed unsustainable due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant appropriate relief under the law.