9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Burden of proof on Department to establish foreign origin and smuggled nature of seized goods. 3. Reliability of inculpatory statements and retraction by appellant. 4. Appellant's defense regarding possession of snail tongues. 5. Applicability of legal principles from previous rulings to the current case. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for possession of smuggled goods. The appellant was found in possession of snail tongues, suspected to be of foreign origin, which were concealed in his business premises. The appellant's defense included challenging the reliability of inculpatory statements and retracted confessions, questioning the burden of proof on the Department to establish the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the seized goods, and arguing that possession of snail tongues, available in India, should not incriminate him. The appellant also claimed to have purchased the goods through a legitimate source, which was disproved during the investigation. The judgment discusses the statements made by a Sri Lankan national implicating the appellant in the smuggling activities, along with the appellant's subsequent confessional statement corroborating the purchase of smuggled goods. Despite the appellant's retractions, the court found inconsistencies in the explanations provided, especially regarding the dispatch of goods under a fictitious label. The court noted that the burden of proof lies on the Department, but various circumstances, including the false defense version and statements of involved parties, collectively established the smuggling of goods. The court referred to previous legal rulings emphasizing the Department's obligation to prove foreign origin and illicit importation, which were deemed applicable to the current case. Ultimately, the court upheld the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty but modified the amounts in the interest of justice. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 5,000, and the penalty was decreased from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000. The court concluded that the impugned order was legally sustainable, dismissing the appeal except for the specified modifications to the fines and penalties.
|
