9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act based on recovery of heroin; Contention of lack of evidence against the appellant except for a statement; Acquittal in criminal trial due to lack of evidence; Argument against setting aside penalty based solely on criminal trial; Consideration of statement recorded under duress; Appellant's imprisonment before acquittal; Interpretation of High Court judgment in appellant's favor. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act due to the recovery of a significant amount of heroin. The appellant contested that there was no substantial evidence against them besides a statement. The appellant was not present during the recovery, and in a criminal trial, they were acquitted on the grounds of lack of evidence. The Revenue argued that the acquittal based on doubt should not be the sole reason to set aside the penalty, emphasizing the strict requirement of proof in criminal trials. The Revenue's position was that the criminal trial outcome should not automatically lead to the penalty being overturned. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant was not present during the recovery, and the High Court's judgment highlighted doubts regarding the statement recorded under duress while in custody of Customs officials. The High Court's decision emphasized the lack of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the contraband, leading to the appellant's acquittal. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, considering the circumstances of the case and the observations made by the High Court. The High Court's recognition of the possibility of duress or coercion during the statement recording process, along with the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the contraband, influenced the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty and allow the appeal. The appellant's contention regarding the statement being recorded under duress while in the custody of Customs authorities played a crucial role in the final judgment. In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, especially in light of the High Court's observations regarding the lack of substantial evidence and the potential coercion during the statement recording process. The decision to set aside the penalty was based on the acknowledgment of these critical factors, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
