1983 (2) TMI 298 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act for hearing the appeal.
2. Reliability of the confessional statement of Shri Sajdeh.
3. Timeliness of the appeal under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act.
4. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act.

Compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal addressed a preliminary objection regarding non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act raised by the departmental representative. The representative argued that the appeal should not be heard on merits as no order waiving the penalty deposit requirement under Section 129-E had been passed. The appellant's advocate made a verbal request for stay pending the hearing, which the Tribunal reserved its decision on and proceeded with the case. The Tribunal ultimately found the verbal request for stay inadequate, deeming Section 129-E provisions mandatory and dismissing the appeal for non-compliance.

Reliability of the confessional statement of Shri Sajdeh:
The main issue revolved around the reliability of Shri Sajdeh's confessional statement dated 14-8-1980. The appellant's advocate argued that the statement was coerced and not corroborated, emphasizing Shri Sajdeh's retraction and lack of evidence linking him to the seized items. However, the departmental representative contended that the statement was valid under Section 108 of the Customs Act and supported by the panchanama. The Tribunal found the statement voluntary and truthful, dismissing the retraction and upholding the penalty on Shri Sajdeh for smuggling.

Timeliness of the appeal under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act:
The departmental representative argued that Shri Sajdeh's appeal was time-barred as it was filed beyond the stipulated period under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act. Despite attempts to explain the delay due to procedural changes, the Tribunal found the appeal clearly time-barred under the relevant notifications and orders. No request for condonation of delay was made, leading to the rejection of the appeal on this ground.

Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act raised by the departmental representative as an afterthought. The appellant's verbal request for stay was deemed insufficient, with the Tribunal highlighting the mandatory nature of Section 129-E provisions. The lack of a written application for stay and the belated nature of the request led to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground.

In conclusion, the appeal of Shri Sajdeh was rejected on the grounds of merits, timeliness, and non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act, with the Tribunal upholding the penalty for smuggling based on the reliability of the confessional statement and supporting evidence.