2009 (10) TMI 914 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of confessional statements and their retraction.
3. Involvement of appellants in the smuggling racket.
4. Evidentiary value of statements and corroborative evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

Imposition of Penalties:
The appeals were filed against the imposition of penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- respectively under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed following the seizure of smuggled goods, including gold jewelry concealed in a refrigerator, which were declared as "Personal Effects."

Validity of Confessional Statements and Their Retraction:
The appellants argued that their confessional statements were made under threat and duress and were retracted at the earliest opportunity. They contended that without corroborative independent evidence, these statements should not be used to impose penalties. The appellants relied on several judgments, including Union of India vs. Bal Mukund & Ors., which held that retracted confessions without corroborative evidence could not be the sole basis for conviction.

Involvement of Appellants in the Smuggling Racket:
The investigation revealed that the appellants were part of a smuggling syndicate led by one Pappa Totla and Arvind Saxena. The appellants, including Vivek Dutta, Sanjay Nair, and Ravi Kotian, were involved in clearing smuggled goods using forged documents. The statements recorded during the investigation indicated that the appellants were aware of the smuggling activities and had previously cleared similar consignments.

Evidentiary Value of Statements and Corroborative Evidence:
The Revenue argued that the confessional statements, even if retracted, were admissible under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court in CC, Madras vs. D. Bhoormull and Naresh J. Sukhawani vs. Union of India supported the view that confessional statements could be used as corroborative evidence in customs cases. The adjudicating authority found sufficient evidence, including forged documents and the concealment of gold jewelry, to corroborate the involvement of the appellants in the smuggling activities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the appellants, concluding that they were actively involved in the smuggling of goods. The arguments regarding retracted confessional statements were dismissed, as the evidence and circumstances of the case sufficiently proved the appellants' involvement. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.