2015 (9) TMI 1453 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty for abetment - involvement of smuggling of goods- intact garments in the name of old completely pre-mutilated garments would be fraudulently cleared from ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), even without examination by Customs Authority. - Held that - The appellant is manager of M/s Quick Clearing Agency, CHA and a partner in M/s PH Logistics in which the other partner was Mr. Narendra Singh. He directly and actively participated in the smuggling in this case is evident from para 46.4 of the impugned order, the contents of which are not being repeated here for brevity. The said para clearly brings out that as per the appellant s own statement - Having regard to the nature of impugned goods and in view of the fact that their value was ₹ 1.13 crores, we are of the view that the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority is not unreasonable or arbitrary. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant for involvement in smuggling activities.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2009, which upheld the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant. The case involved specific intelligence gathered by Customs regarding fraudulent clearance of intact garments as pre-mutilated garments from ICD, TKD. The appellant, a manager of a Clearing Agency and a partner in another logistics firm, was actively involved in the smuggling operation, as per the evidence presented. The appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities was established through statements and actions, including handling of Bill of Entry and coordination with other individuals. The Tribunal noted that a retraction without evidence of coercion does not diminish the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering the nature and value of the impugned goods, the Tribunal found the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority to be reasonable and upheld the decision. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

No one appeared for the hearing, and the appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the smuggling case as he was only responsible for office work. However, the Tribunal found evidence of the appellant's direct involvement in the smuggling operation, as indicated in the impugned order. The appellant's participation in coordinating the clearance of goods, arranging transport, and handling documentation was established through statements and actions of other individuals involved in the operation. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment to emphasize that a retraction of a statement does not negate its evidentiary value unless evidence of coercion is presented. Based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the value of the goods involved in the smuggling operation and the appellant's active role in the illegal activities.