9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act based on confessional statements and retractions, nexus between the appellants and seized goods, retraction of statements, financial hardships claimed by the appellants. Analysis: The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on two individuals under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for their alleged involvement in bringing Foreign Marked Gold Biscuits into India using passports obtained through illicit means. The penalties were based on confessional statements given by the appellants, which were later retracted. The appellants argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify the penalties and that the statements were retracted under duress. They also highlighted the failure to implicate another individual involved in the case, which could have changed the course of the investigation. The appellants claimed financial hardships as well, seeking a reduction in penalties. The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellants were linked to the seized goods through their confessional statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Despite the retractions, the Tribunal noted that the circumstances of the retractions did not appear genuine, as the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence of coercion or intimidation. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the original statements were reliable and could be used to impose penalties. The appellants' plea for lesser penalties was acknowledged, indicating a possibility for reduction based on the circumstances. Regarding the financial hardships claimed by the appellants, the Tribunal assessed their financial status at the time of the case. One appellant was found to have significant assets and financial stability, while the other had a more plausible claim of financial difficulties. Despite this, the Tribunal directed both individuals to pre-deposit specific amounts as a condition, allowing them to contest the quantum of penalties further. The decision emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the penalties imposed, suggesting a potential for reduction based on the appellants' circumstances.
|
