2006 (6) TMI 375 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is justified based on the manipulation of entries in the DEEC licence?
2. Whether the retraction of the statement made by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act is valid?
3. Whether the appellant's involvement in the manipulation of entries in the DEEC licence warrants the penalty imposed by the lower authorities?

Analysis:
1. The appellant was involved in the purchase and sale of DEEC licences, specifically License No. 06000373, which was used by M/s. Farida Prime Tannery to import goods duty-free under the DEEC scheme. The original authority confirmed a duty demand against the importer, along with confiscation of goods and a penalty on the appellant. The first appellate authority upheld this decision. The Tribunal in a previous case found the DEEC licence to be fraudulently created, and the appellant's involvement in manipulating entries in the licence was established by the lower authorities. As the appellant did not challenge this crucial finding, the penalty imposed was deemed justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence linking the appellant to the manipulation of the DEEC licence. However, the original authority's finding based on the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act contradicted this claim. The appellant's alleged retraction of the statement before a Judicial Magistrate was deemed irrelevant as it was not challenged in a timely manner and should have been retracted before the proper officer of Customs. The lower authorities' conclusion of the appellant's involvement in the manipulation was not contested in the current appeal, further supporting the justification for the penalty imposed.

3. The limited issue for consideration in the appeal was whether the appellant's actions rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, leading to the penalty under Section 112. The appellant's denial of involvement in the manipulation was refuted by the statement given under Section 108, which was not validly retracted. As the Tribunal had already determined the DEEC licence to be fraudulently created, and the appellant's role in the manipulation was established, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was upheld. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the appellant's involvement in the manipulation of entries in the DEEC licence, justifying the penalty imposed.