1996 (10) TMI 432 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegations of smuggling heroin across the Indo-Pak border.
3. Statements of co-accused linking the appellant to the recovered heroin.
4. Discharge of the appellant in the criminal case related to the heroin recovery.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the smuggling of heroin across the Indo-Pak border. On the night of 12/13th July, 1990, Customs officers and Border Security Force personnel found 58 kgs of heroin in gunny bags near the border. Subsequently, more heroin was recovered from a defense bunker. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded from individuals involved in the smuggling, implicating the appellant in bringing the heroin from Pakistan. The appellant denied any involvement, stating he only knew one of the individuals. The appellant was in custody under the Public Safety Act before the heroin recovery. The co-accused named the appellant in their statements, linking him to the smuggling operation.

The appellant's legal representative argued that there was no concrete evidence linking the appellant to the recovered heroin, and mere statements of co-accused should not be sufficient for conviction. The appellant was discharged in the criminal case related to the heroin recovery, indicating a lack of evidence against him. However, the Tribunal noted that the principles governing criminal proceedings and departmental adjudication differ. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that statements made before Customs officials can be used as evidence under the Customs Act, even if they are not recorded under the Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, the statements of the co-accused directly implicated the appellant in the smuggling operation, and there was no indication of ill-will or enmity towards the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.