2010 (5) TMI 476 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty smuggling - respondent had no evidence of ownership of the goods - self-contained code which speaks for itself to be considered as relevant in a proceeding - Relevancy of such evidence has been considered in various decisions of the Apex Court holding that such a useful evidence recorded by customs officer is admissible - no evidence to refute the allegation calls for setting aside of the first order and to restore the order in original - ordered accordingly

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against waiver of penalty and setting aside of confiscation.
2. Relevance of statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Failure of first appellate authority to appreciate the relevancy of Section 108 statement.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal concerning the waiver of penalty and setting aside of confiscation. The learned DR argued that the act of smuggling did not warrant the waiver of penalty and reversal of the confiscation order. The appellate order, as per para 5, granted relief to the Respondent based on a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted that Section 108 is a self-contained code that is considered relevant in proceedings. It emphasized that evidence recorded under Section 108 is admissible, as per various decisions of the Apex Court. The judgment pointed out that the first appellate authority failed to appreciate the relevancy of the Section 108 statement, despite it being a judicial proceeding under Section 108(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of evidence to refute the allegation led to the decision to set aside the first order and restore the original order.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of Section 108 statements in customs proceedings and the need for their proper consideration. It highlights the legal significance of such evidence and the obligation of the authorities to give due weight to statements recorded under Section 108. The decision to reverse the first appellate order was based on the failure to acknowledge the relevance and admissibility of the evidence presented under Section 108, emphasizing the judicial nature of the proceedings conducted under this section.