2005 (12) TMI 298 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Reliance on uncorroborated testimony.
3. Confiscation of vehicles.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.
5. The relevance of the Supreme Court's judgment in the criminal appeal of Costao Fernandez.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as key witnesses (Vincy, Baptista, and Sebastian) were not produced for cross-examination. The Commissioner relied on their testimony despite their absence. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner made every attempt to summon these witnesses, who were reportedly living abroad. The Tribunal observed that Section 138B of the Customs Act allows reliance on statements if witnesses cannot be produced without considerable expense and time. The Tribunal concluded that cross-examination is not essential in all quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly when the witnesses are unavailable.

2. Reliance on Uncorroborated Testimony:
The appellants contended that the Commissioner erred in relying solely on the testimony of Costao Fernandez. The Tribunal observed that the evidence in the case was primarily circumstantial. Costao's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and his affidavit were considered reliable. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had also relied on Costao's testimony in the criminal appeal, concluding that gold worth Rs. 8.00 crores was being smuggled. The Tribunal emphasized that a single trustworthy witness could establish a fact without further corroboration, as per the Evidence Act.

3. Confiscation of Vehicles:
The Commissioner confiscated the car, the Maruti, and a scooter under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, as they were used in the carriage of smuggled goods. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that no serious challenge was made against it. The Tribunal concluded that once it was established that the boxes contained contraband, the vehicles' liability to confiscation was justified.

4. Imposition of Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act:
The Commissioner imposed penalties ranging from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants for their involvement in smuggling activities. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had analyzed the role of each individual and concluded that they not only handled the contraband but also actively participated in smuggling. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's findings and upheld the penalties imposed.

5. Relevance of the Supreme Court's Judgment in the Criminal Appeal of Costao Fernandez:
The appellants argued that the Supreme Court's observations in Costao's criminal appeal should not influence the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had concluded that Costao was attempting to prevent smuggling of gold worth Rs. 8.00 crores. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence before the Supreme Court was identical to that presented before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that it was safe to rely on the Supreme Court's finding that the car was carrying gold, despite no gold being seized subsequently.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeals, upholding the penalties and confiscation ordered by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the involvement of the appellants in smuggling activities. The Tribunal also emphasized the reliability of Costao's testimony and the relevance of the Supreme Court's judgment in the criminal appeal.