2003 (11) TMI 517 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Penalty imposition based on statements of co-accused, lack of independent corroboration of allegations, absence of incriminating evidence during search.

Penalty Imposition Based on Statements of Co-Accused:
The judgment concerns a penalty of Rs. 30,000 imposed on the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs due to the seizure of foreign currency from another individual, Shri Jolly Anthony, who claimed to have received the currency from the appellant. The appellant, being the cousin of Shri Jolly, denied the allegations based on the statements of the co-accused. The appellant argued that the penalty was imposed solely on the basis of these statements without any concrete evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling operations. The Tribunal noted that the currency was not seized from the appellant, and no incriminating goods were found during the search of the appellant's business premises in his absence. The judgment highlighted the lack of independent corroboration of the accusations made by the co-accused, emphasizing that the penalty was based on assumptions and presumptions rather than tangible evidence.

Lack of Independent Corroboration of Allegations:
The Tribunal emphasized that the allegations against the appellant as an abettor to smuggling were solely based on the statements of the co-accused, lacking any independent corroboration. It was noted that there was a total absence of incriminating evidence found during the search of the appellant's business premises, further weakening the case against him. The judgment pointed out that the orders imposing the penalty were devoid of reliable evidence and were primarily reliant on the statements of the co-accused, which were not substantiated independently. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not sustainable due to the absence of concrete proof linking him to the alleged smuggling activities.

Absence of Incriminating Evidence During Search:
The Tribunal highlighted that no incriminating goods or materials were seized from the appellant's business premises during the search conducted in his absence. Despite the allegations of using the premises for smuggling operations, no tangible evidence supporting these claims was found. The judgment underscored that the orders of the lower authorities imposing the penalty were based on assumptions and lacked any substantial or reliable evidence to justify the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and modified the orders of the lower authorities accordingly, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant.